No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Montalban]

Despite one poster’s appeal to incredulity the Cahtolic source shows that the 2nd Ecumenical Council was accepted as “ecumenical” in the east despite the pope’s not declaring it so, to two more centuries after

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

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

St. John Chrysostom would not disagree with your account of St. Peter’s life (I don’t know why you would accuse this great saint and doctor of the church of being ignorant of the tradition concerning Peter, and actually, the last time I checked, it is not allowed for Catholic faithful to impugn the doctrinal purity of doctors of the Church). He very clearly taught, however, that, while Rome is a successor to Peter and the possessor of his body, Antioch is spiritually a successor of Peter (calling the bishop of Antioch at the time, bishop Flavian, another Peter). He does not mention any special prerogatives that Rome’s Peter has over Antioch’s Peter.

 

[Vico]

Despite one poster’s appeal to incredulity the Cahtolic source shows that the 2nd Ecumenical Council was accepted as “ecumenical” in the east despite the pope’s not declaring it so, to two more centuries after

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

It was not considered to be ecumenical until after Chalcedon demonstrating that it was not considered ecumenical at the time of the Constantinople I (381). Once a Pope had accepted something from it, it aquired that quality. The Creed from 381 was accepted for the first time at Chalcedon (451).

Catechism of the Catholic Church247. “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.”

 

[Vico]

Repeating your assertions again and again does not demonstrate their veracity

See post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10810554&postcount=281

 

[Montalban]

Despite one poster’s appeal to incredulity the Cahtolic source shows that the 2nd Ecumenical Council was accepted as “ecumenical” in the east despite the pope’s not declaring it so, to two more centuries after

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

It is still BEFORE the pope accepted it according to newadvent!

 

[Montalban]

See post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10810554&postcount=281

:takethat:

 

[Montalban]

regarding the 2nd Ecumenical Council

For anyone interested here’s the argument in a nut-shell using the Catholic source

“Originally it was only a council of the Orient; the arguments of Baronius (ad an. 381, nos. 19, 20) to prove that it was called by Pope Damasus are invalid (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1908, II, 4). It was attended by 150 Catholic and 36 heretical (Semi-Arian, Macedonian) bishops, and was presided over by Meletius of Antioch; after his death, by the successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius.”
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

That is Pope Damasus had nothing to do with it’s inception. That’s important in considering the next piece of information from the same page…

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. Its mention in the so-called “Decretum Gelasii”, towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

That is Damasus may have approved of the creed only.

So far no pope has yet declared it ecumenical

Then, in the east it’s declared as ecumenical. Still NO POPE has done so.

Then we have mention of Leo - totally silent on the matter. No papal approval yet.

This alone is enough for my case.

The eastern churches accepted this as ecumenical even though popes had not yet done so - the notion that the popes HAD to declare it as ecumenical is absent from the minds of the eastern churches.

Then the next bit “Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances”

Still no papal approval of the council. Certainly a part of it, is admitted as ecumenical here.

Vigilius is in 537. The ‘eastern’ approval ACCORDING TO THIS CATHOLIC SOURCE dates from 451. Therefore about 100 years before a pope is known to give the most tacit of approval to the 2nd ecumenical council the east has accepted it.

 

[Montalban]

I had noted several councils were NOT headed by a papal legate.

One historian notes that at Ephesus the sessions were begun before the legates had even arrived!
Kelly, J. F., (1991) The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History (Liturgical Press; Collegeville, MN), p40.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

**I said:**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.

**Montealban said: **I am aware of that source. The Catholic Encyclopaedia doesn’t claim that

The Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent resource, but I don’t think it should limit us, especially in discussing historical matters. I think Gelasius’ assertion that Hosius represented he pope needs to be dealt with, especially since he had the official Acts of the Council, and we do not. Why would Gelasius, who was writing a history of the Council, falsify such a critical piece of information? Wouldn’t his failure as an historian on such an important point have been obvious to his contemporaries?

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.

I´m aware that some historians in the last century or so have disputed that Hosius represented the pope. But based on what? So far as I can tell, based only on a suspicion that the later (eastern) tradition did not preserve the truth.

This hermeneutics of suspicion has become du jour in the modern era, but I would imagine that both Catholics and Orthodox would not embrace it. Without evidence to the contrary, why call into question the consistent traditional witness of Pope Sylvester’s crucial involvement in I Nicea (Gelasius,various eastern liturgies, Constantinople III’s claim that Constantine with Sylvester summoned ‘The Great Synod’ of Nicea).

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

The emperor left the council after an opening address, if I remember correctly. As he should have; emperor’s have no place in church councils.

Are you suggesting, then, that Hosius presided on his own behalf, and by his own authority? Over the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (Petrine Sees, as some are fond of pointing out).

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.

Hosius may have been in the capital advising the emperor. So how can we reconcile Hosius relationship with Constantine with Gelasius’ statement that Hosius ‘held the place of Sylvester’? Since we don’t have the acts, all we can do is speculate. Maybe it went like this: Pope Sylvester and Constantine agreed on Hosius based on Hosius’ experience against the Arians and his relationship with Constantine. An emperor could clearly never participate in the doctrinal decisions of the church-- Rome was always clear on this (witness Pope Gelasius in the fifth century reviving the imagery of the ‘two swords’ or ‘the sun and moon’ meant to indicate that the episcopate was higher than the imperial power-- see Nichols, 'Rome and the Eastern Churches, p. 184)-- so it was agreed that Hosius would preside in the name of Sylvester. Sylvester sent additional legates in whom he had greater familiarity/trust.

This is obviously solely a theory based on the little evidence we have. But it seems to me far more likely than cutting out the later tradition and denying Pope Sylvester a leading role.

I said: (An ecumenical council) is 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.

**You said:**All were called for by emperors. They even did so against papal wishes

I’m not sure who you’re arguing against. I said that morally speaking, from the logic of what the church is, it should be popes rather than emperors who called councils. Do you really want to argue that the secular state should be involved in internal church matters of articulating doctrine?

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

cont.

I said: 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.

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

What fourth century sources do you have at your disposal to resolve the question?
Constantinople III does state that Pope Sylvester (with Constantine) ‘summoned the Great Synod of Nicea’

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

**You said:**I addressed that

But not adequately. The liturgy states: ‘Father Sylvester…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from the Egyptian error and continually leading them with unerring teaching to the divine light.’

I take from this that Pope Sylvester played an active and essential role in freeing the Church from Arianism. I don’t know where this would’ve happened, apart from I Nicea.

I said: 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.

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

I agree that there are three sees of petrine foundation. So why is the liturgy referring to Sylvester as ‘the supreme one’ of the Sacred Council?

I think what’s happening here is that you’re choosing to read church history with a hermeneutics of suspicion or discontinuity. I would suggest that a more catholic, orthodox approach, would be to assume that, when contemporary documents are lacking, later tradition should be trusted.

For someone who reads the data through the lens of a hermeneutic of continuity, there’s no difficulty whatsoever in saying that I Nicea was convened by Pope Sylvester (with Constantine), was presided over by Pope Sylvester (through Hosius) and was sent to Rome for confirmation, in keeping with Pope Julius’s declaration that no ecclesiastical decree was to be published without Rome’s consent.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

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.

This might be the silliest post I’ve ever read, if it weren’t so insulting.

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

The fourth ecumenical council was Chalcedon. Your quotation above refers to the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449, which, of course, Chalcedon overturned. I hope you don’t consider Catholics responsible for an invalid council.

After pages of patient explanations and helpful posts by smad0142, Vico, twf, Chris Redfield and others, you continue to make the same interpretive error of assigning ‘rules’ to these first-millennium ecumenical councils. Where are you finding these rules? If it were a simple mistake, it might be understandable. But despite patient, documented corrections from Vico and others, you continue to assert their existence. Then, when these fictional rules are not always met by the historical record, you register a ‘gotcha’ against the straw man you’ve created.

I have to imagine that you’re not really interested in understanding the Catholic position.

I had hoped we could go through all of the ecumenical councils, starting with I Nicea, try to establish exactly what the pope’s role was in each, and compare it with the Church’s teaching of the role of the pope vis-a-vis the councils.

But if we can’t even agree on what the Catholic Church’s teaching is-- though it’s clearly and simply stated in the catechism in a half a page or so (here, 880-887) – then I think it’s time for me to withdraw from the conversation.

 

[Montalban]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent resource, but I don’t think it should limit us, especially in discussing historical matters.

I’m not limited by it; I’m focussing on it. Else if I cite non-Catholic sources people will cry foul that they’re ‘anti-Catholic’

I think Gelasius’ assertion that Hosius represented he pope needs to be dealt with, especially since he had the official Acts of the Council, and we do not. Why would Gelasius, who was writing a history of the Council, falsify such a critical piece of information? Wouldn’t his failure as an historian on such an important point have been obvious to his contemporaries?

Here’s a problem with your post. I’ve already dealt with this. I’m happy to go over it again;

a) the site deals fairly with the issue, showing some writers for, and some against Hosius being papal representative

b) If he were papal legate then there’d be no reason for the pope to send legates!

I´m aware that some historians in the last century or so have disputed that Hosius represented the pope. But based on what? So far as I can tell, based only on a suspicion that the later (eastern) tradition did not preserve the truth.

I also dealt with further evidence – which you’ve not addressed. Eusebius’ Life of Constantine suggests Eusebius had the chief place; so at pest the legates were only ‘present’.

This hermeneutics of suspicion has become du jour in the modern era, but I would imagine that both Catholics and Orthodox would not embrace it. Without evidence to the contrary, why call into question the consistent traditional witness of Pope Sylvester’s crucial involvement in I Nicea (Gelasius,various eastern liturgies, Constantinople III’s claim that Constantine with Sylvester summoned ‘The Great Synod’ of Nicea).

Given my responses above you’re just speculating in your question of ‘modern’ historians.

The emperor left the council after an opening address, if I remember correctly. As he should have; emperor’s have no place in church councils.

Are you suggesting, then, that Hosius presided on his own behalf, and by his own authority? Over the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch (Petrine Sees, as some are fond of pointing out).

This is another bait switch that has happened here. I have never argued that someone ‘presiding’ presided on their own behalf.

However if they are ‘presiding’ they represent the church. Somewhat like how the Vice President ‘presides’ in the US Senate.

 

[Montalban]

This might be the silliest post I’ve ever read, if it weren’t so insulting.

touche!

The fourth ecumenical council was Chalcedon. Your quotation above refers to the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449, which, of course, Chalcedon overturned. I hope you don’t consider Catholics responsible for an invalid council.

Yes, I accept that the pope couldn’t get his letter read at that council.

After pages of patient explanations and helpful posts by smad0142, Vico, twf, Chris Redfield and others, you continue to make the same interpretive error of assigning ‘rules’ to these first-millennium ecumenical councils.

No, I don’t

1st I’d like to digress that Vico’s posts aren’t explanations and helpful posts but simply repeating of his original assertion.

However leaving that aside I have cited the Catholic Encyclopaedia stating what is required. I also note that when councils don’t meet those requirements you guys play the trump card by arguing from silence; that is even if councils don’t meet those requirements papal supremacy just must still be in operation – because it is.

Any of your requirements; papal approval being one I’ve continually shown from the Catholic Encyclopaedia that the east accepted the 2nd council at least a century before the most timid and limited papal approval.

What your argument is is circular. You think that one person’s endless repeating of a mantra of faith is an explanation!

Where are you finding these rules?

If you don’t read the posts your criticising then I see no point in discussing what must otherwise be speculation

 

[Montalban]

I agree that there are three sees of petrine foundation. So why is the liturgy referring to Sylvester as ‘the supreme one’ of the Sacred Council?

I’m happy to deal with this illogic separately.

If the three Sees are one, then it doesn’t matter if Sylvester is the supreme one; the three Sees then would all be supreme.

:sigh:
I have also mentioned this before

The church is a reflection of the Trinity.

God the father has in one sense a ‘primacy’ because he is the origin of all things.

However the other persons of the Trinity are fully God.

If I pray to Jesus, I am praying to ALL THREE because they are one.

If three Sees are ONE – as the pope said in my quote then praising ROME would be praising all three; else they wouldn’t be ONE, now would they?

It’d be like you saying “Oh, not I’m not praying to God, just to Jesus”

Likewise; the apostles ALL are the foundation. There are many shepherds. All are called to be like Peter.

Your objection only works if you say “Oh, yes all three are one, but in this case it’s like one, separate from the other part of ‘one’.”

 

[Montalban]

From Life of Constantine

Book III

The prelate of the imperial city3242 Also in this series. was prevented from attending by extreme old age; but his presbyters were present, and supplied his place
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iii.vii.html

The footnote says it’s unclear whether this means Rome or, Constantinople.

“[It has been doubted whether Rome or Constantinople is here intended. The authority of Sozomen and others is in favor of the former. See English translation, published as one volume of this series.—Bag.]”

Now we turn to chapter eleven

It’s called:

Chapter XI.—Silence of the Council, after Some Words by the Bishop Eusebius

It says
*
The bishop who occupied the chief place in the right division of the assembly3248 then rose, and, addressing the emperor, delivered a concise speech, in a strain of thanksgiving to Almighty God on his behalf. When he had resumed his seat, silence ensued, and all regarded the emperor with fixed attention; on which he looked serenely round on the assembly with a cheerful aspect, and, having collected his thoughts, in a calm and gentle tone gave utterance to the following words. *

Looking at the footnote again

• [The authority of Sozomen and other writers seems to decide that this was Eusebius himself.—Bag.]*

The reason; because the title says Eusebius spoke; and the text talks of he who was in the chief place.

I presented this evidence already. I accept that someone writing 150 years later says Hosius was the chief; and that others speculate that he was a papal legate. Catholics here have totally ignored this evidence I presented, then asked me why it is I maintain what I believe!

One has (I assume) incredulously asked me why I don’t believe a source writen more than a 100 years after, rather than by someone who was actually present!

I’m asked to present argument I’ve alredy presented. However for the record, I present it here AGAIN.

 

[Montalban]

Peter serves to represent the whole church. As such any praise for Peter is praise for all; all who are like Peter - who make the same confession as he did; that Jesus is Christ.

Three Sees were recognised as being equally Petrine. Catholics are tyring the old ‘but some are more equal than others’ by suggesting that yes, all three are Sees of Peter, but Rome is more Petrine than others.

The church in Rome serves to represent the whole church too, in the same way.

That is why we see church fathers call the others the same as they call Peter.

Unfortunately Catholic apologetics is about creating massive false dichotomies.

John Chrysostom called both Peter and others;

Prince of the apostles;

Teacher of the world;

Holder of the keys;

Head of the choir.*

Others Church Fathers call Peter the rock, the key holder, the shepherd, etc. and assign like terms to discussing others.

You wouldn’t know this reading Catholic apologetics cites that simply quote that bit that praises Peter.

It totally distorts the intention of the Church Fathers. It’s a fraud and an argument dependent upon fraud is not a good argument

Some are more ‘rock’ than others, I guess.

Some of these sites offer highly novel and imaginative argument; such as from statistics; Peter is named more than anyone else (except Jesus). Peter had his name changed. Peter is called Blessed and, so on. There’s even Catholics following some Protestant exegesis to

a) declare in Mathew there’s a difference between the gifts to Peter alone and the apostles as a whole, on the basis of the absence of the word ‘keys’ in the gift to the apostles (this is Protestant method; sola scriptura). Church Fathers assume that they are both the same.

b) that there’s a link between the singular key mentioned with David to the keys (plural) mentioned with Peter. Only one single Church Father (that I’m aware of) makes this link.

*This itself involves some really weird speculations by Catholics; Stephen Ray for instance notes that Chrysostom calls the Apostles (pl.) head of the choir; but assigns the same term to Peter (by himself). He then speculates that there must be a difference between calling the group the SAME THING as he calls Peter – because Peter just must be different.

 

[Vico]

Despite one poster’s appeal to incredulity the Cahtolic source shows that the 2nd Ecumenical Council was accepted as “ecumenical” in the east despite the pope’s not declaring it so, to two more centuries after

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

It is still BEFORE the pope accepted it according to newadvent!

Note that it states “among the Greeks”. It was not considered such by the Latin Church.

“The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451).”

 

[Montalban]

Note that it states “among the Greeks”. It was not considered such by the Latin Church.

Yes, that was my point!

What was yours?

I don’t get why you’re posting and not addressing the point. The very point I made was that the mind of the church of the east was that they didn’t require papal approval.

Your reply is simply to show that this was the case. Then you repeat your citations over and over again, simply reinforcing my point!



I’m awaiting for you to make a point that disagrees with me.

Try this another way

Your rule is that a council is only ecumenical if the pope approves it.

I show FROM YOUR QUOTE that it was accepted in the east before papal approval.

You reply that they did this!

That undermines your rule!

 

[Vico]

Yes, that was my point!

What was yours?

I don’t get why you’re posting and not addressing the point. The very point I made was that the mind of the church of the east was that they didn’t require papal approval.

Your reply is simply to show that this was the case. Then you repeat your citations over and over again, simply reinforcing my point!



I’m awaiting for you to make a point that disagrees with me.

Try this another way

Your rule is that a council is only ecumenical if the pope approves it.

I show FROM YOUR QUOTE that it was accepted in the east before papal approval.

You reply that they did this!

That undermines your rule!

I agree that the east had that idea whereas the Latin did not. I personally do not have a rule, however the Latin Church has always maintained that the matters of faith and morals are ratified by the Pope to be certainly of the faith.

The Latin Church has as a matter of fact, accepted the council of 381 as ecumenical although it was a local eastern council.

 

[Montalban]

I agree that the east had that idea whereas the Latin did not.

As I noted you’ve posted heaps in response - none of which troubles my postion - but fear not, another described to me your posts as being informative and helpful.

For me however it’s just been another fruitless exercise where your posts offer no points to make. Wherein I get a large volume of posts that don’t disagree with me. I wonder then how you reconcile this with the position of papal authority.

I personally do not have a rule, however the Latin Church has always maintained that the matters of faith and morals are ratified by the Pope to be certainly of the faith.

The Latin Church has as a matter of fact, accepted the council of 381 as ecumenical although it was a local eastern council.

Whis is still irrelevant to my point.

What would be helpful if you come up with an explanation of why you think the eastern church ignored the pope.

Like: What relevance does this have to the papacy?