No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Montalban]

Let’s do a summary

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that ‘the Greeks’ accepted a council well before the west.

At best one pope accepted only the creed.

Some later popes still rejected the council (or its canons)

All its canons weren’t accepted in the west till the 1200’s.

The east still accepted them

If one accepts the Catholic interpretation of one writer - a patriarch, then he is at best saying “Sorry, for the embarrassment of my colleagues accepting these canons without running them by you first” which still does not negate my point that the east accepted them BEFORE they were accepted in the west.

Catholic apologists still haven’t addressed that!

 

[tdgesq]

I already dealt with this earlier too! Damasus gave the most tentative approval. But other popes did not regard it as ecumenical. Pope Leo said he’d never even heard of some of its canons (regarding promotion of Sees).

The Catholic Encyclopedia quote you reference states that it could have only been the creed that he approved, which was likely attached to Damasus’ tome that he had already sent to the council of Constantinople. Rome never received the acts of the council, although there is a letter from bishops of Constantinople that there was a council.

Then you don’t have a point.

Yes, I do have a point. You just choose not to acknowledge it. The only question here is: when does a council become ecumenical? And just to be clear, ecumenical means a council the decrees of which bind all of the members of the universal Church, including the church of Rome.

I have no doubt that many in the East believed that the decrees of the First Council of Constantinople were ecumenical and binding on all the catholic faithful. Where you and I disagree is why they believed that. According to your interpretation, it is that the bishops of the council must have believed that neither the Pope of Rome’s knowledge, nor his consent to the acts of a council are necessary for those acts to be ecumenical. My interpretation is (here comes the point, don’t miss it) that all of the historical evidence that surrounds this council - the little that there is - indicates that the bishops believed that the Pope would accept those decrees. Why? Because:

1. Pope Damasus had sent the council his tome which closely agrees with the acts of Constantinople I;
2. The bishops in their letter to the Pope indicate that they believe he will in fact agree with the acts of the council;
3. Rome didn’t actually receive the acts of the council, despite the intent that it would; and
4. Later councils (Chalcedon) did require the Pope’s ratification of the decrees, including Canon 28, which is nearly identical to Canon 3 from the council of Constantinople.

Thanks for agreeing with my point - that papal approval in the West didn’t come about till well after it had in the east.

You are welcome. My position has always been that the decrees can’t be ecumenically binding until Rome agrees, which is also made clear by the historical record.

You’ll have to be careful quoting PhilVaz he uses sources he doesn’t know anything about like E. Giles. I asked him who this guy he quoted was and he couldn’t give me any information.

I have read the same quote from Schaff’, but his work is no longer completely available; I assume because of copyright considerations. Here’s what is now in it’s place:
“Letter CXXXII. From Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, to Leo.
(In which he complains of the intermission in their correspondence, maintains his allegiance to Rome, announces the restitution of Aetius, deprecates the charge of personal ambition, and remits the proceedings of Chalcedon for his approval.)” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.cxxvi.html

Your quote from the Patriarch (if I accept your interpretation of it) still shows that the council itself did not require papal approval - at best - assuming your interpretation - you have the patriarch writing embarrassed that the council went ahead and ignored the pope - but that the should have consulted him

Good grief. It makes it very difficult to discuss this when you haven’t studied it.
"Letter XCVIII.
From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

IV. They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo’s consent to it.

And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told. The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople . . . . ] We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk.
. . .
Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting. For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement. But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done." ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xciii.html

The council did request that Pope Leo ratify it, and he didn’t. By the way, why is it that the bishops at Chalcedon felt the need to ratify the Council of Constantinople? According to you, it was already an ecumenical council. You’re in big trouble here.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

However despite the pope’s protests the east accepted this canon.

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm

You also have the problem that Leo’s protest was only based on the raising of other Sees, not about his own ‘primacy’.

How is that a problem? I agree, it was all about preserving the positions of Alexandria and Antioch. Would you like me to give you quotes from Pope Leo declaring his primacy? I don’t think you really want me to do that.

It’s well and good for you to suggest I deal with argument you claim others make.

Just a practical suggestion. Advancing a position that not even the Orthodox agree with makes the force of your arguments pretty much non-existent. That you didn’t know the bishops at Chalcedon requested that the Pope ratify the acts of the council tells me a lot. See, most educated Orthodox know this, which is one of the reasons why they almost uniformly hold to consent of the Pentarchy as a necessary condition for an ecumenical council. There is another reason.

Without some criterion for what makes a council ecumenical, it is impossible to determine whether the decisions of one group of bishops is ecumenical or not. Why isn’t the Robber Council of Ephesus ecumenical? Why isn’t the Fourth Council of Constantinople ecumenical? Why isn’t Florence ecumenical? So, while this experiment of yours is amusing, it really isn’t edifying anybody.

 

[Montalban]

The Catholic Encyclopedia quote you reference states that it could have only been the creed that he approved, which was likely attached to Damasus’ tome that he had already sent to the council of Constantinople. Rome never received the acts of the council, although there is a letter from bishops of Constantinople that there was a council.

So you’re saying that ‘the Greeks’ approved of

a) the council
or
b) only the creed

based on Damasus’ approval of the Creed?

a) doesn’t help you because it has ‘the Greeks’ going far beyond what Damasus did and
b) it doesn’t say they only accepted the Creed

Either way, this is what the article says:
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).
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

You’re adding in a clause that doesn’t appear in the text. You’re reading it as "The Greeks accepted it BECAUSE of Damasus. That’s not in the text.

As noted above it still doesn’t help you.

It says the Greeks accepted it. FULL STOP. Then it deals with ‘the west’

Yes, I do have a point. You just choose not to acknowledge it.

Your point so far is to read into a text something more than what it says

The only question here is: when does a council become ecumenical? And just to be clear, ecumenical means a council the decrees of which bind all of the members of the universal Church, including the church of Rome.

No. That’s false. It’s accepted as ‘ecumenical’ when it’s said to be such.

And, the text above does not show that the Greeks accepted it as ecumenical AFTER the popes had declared it such. You just choose to ignore that.

I have no doubt that many in the East believed that the decrees of the First Council of Constantinople were ecumenical and binding on all the catholic faithful.

Then I have nothing further to say because now you’re agreeing with me.

 

[Montalban]

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm

I already cautioned you about using PhilVaz. He’s selective.

What he’s saying here is that the East only accepted 27 Canons and to prove this he’s selectively surveyed a few who say that there’s only 27 Canons (that’s even if I accept that this is all that they do indeed say).

Try reading the history of the council itself.

The legates who were not present when Canon 28 was promulgated returned the next day and demanded to know who did it. The Council said that they had voted on it. They kept it. They promulgated it, then they sent it to the emperor Marcion who also accepted it

That alone undermines PhilVaz’s deceptive use of evidence.

*Lucentius, the bishop, said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence; and therefore whatever yesterday was done to the prejudice of the canons during our absence, we beseech your highness to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and pray let us know clearly what we are to report to that most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole church, so that he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See and to the setting at naught of the canons…The most glorious judges said: The whole synod has approved what we proposed.” *
Extracts from the Acts. Session XVI. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 794.)

The whole synod!
*"It was accepted by the council, and then confirmed by the emperor despite protests from the legates. “The imperial commissioners approved the canon; the bishops acclaimed their decision over the protests of the papal legates… Emperor Marcian promulgated the decrees.” *
Davis L. D., (1990), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p191.

Davis is a Catholic historian.

PhilVaz site is full of deceptive use of evidence.

Like your quote yesterday from the Patriarch. I accept he used flowery words to woo Leo. Even that failed to get Leo to sign to XXVIII however two things should be noted

a) It’s obvious the Patriarch accepted it, because he’s trying to get Leo to accept it as well
and
b) even when Leo didn’t accept it the Patriarch still did!

*“So ended this famous correspondence ; and Leo might persuade himself that he had annihilated the obnoxious canon : but it soon appeared that the smooth words of Anatolius were not to be taken as committing the Eastern church and empire. ‘As a matter of fact, the canon did take effect’.” *
Bright, W., (1892) The Canons of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (Clarendon Press; Oxford), p232.

 

[Montalban]

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm

PhilVaz site uses one lot of evidence to prove something else.

There are said to be (in some sources) more than 28 canons at this council
e.g
Canon XXX.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxx.html
Canon XXXI.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxxi.html

I agree that these aren’t always accepted by historians.

But then that’s the problem with the PhilVaz ‘fact’

Simply saying that there are 27 canons in these sources (which he gives NO reference to) does not mean that they reject canon 28. You need to know which they accept. You don’t know this, therefore your ‘facts’ don’t prove your asseriton

WHEREAS

Canon XXVIIII was specifically renewed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Council (which again shows that ‘the East’ accepted it despite what the PhilVaz site explicitly says)

 

[Montalban]

Given PhilVaz doesn’t properly source his material, we’re left guessing that his speculation meets his assertion.

Given that he doesn’t even spell Dionysius Exegiuus correctly I have further doubts using him as a source.

I don’t even know if he can read the original of Theodore

This is also suggestive of poor referencing.

Another site gives exactly the same statement:
Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in AD551 ), John Skolastikas (writing in AD 550 ), Dionysius Exegius (also around AD550 ); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. AD 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon, contrary to the Eastern Orthodox claim: " Leo of Rome rejected this canon, but the east has always recognized its validity."

However this site then cites historical commentary.

Recall that the quote mentions John Scholasticus! When we read Hefele’s quote given regarding John Scholasticus it says:
At the very least, the seventh canon cannot have emanated from this Council, since in the sixth century John Scholasticus did not receive it into his collection, although he adopted the fifth and sixth.
freewebs.com/orthodoxcatholic/Canon28.html

Here’s the problem; the assertion that John Scholasticus did not receive Canon 28 is backed up by evidence that only talks of the 2nd Ecumenical Council! It’s a different council and different canons!

PhilVaz’s asertions are meekly repeated over and over again on other apologetics and debate sites, equally using the same lack of proper references
Does the Orthodox Church predate the Catholic Church?
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/does_the_orthodox_church_predate_the_catholic_church.php

Canon # 28 of Chalcedon
phatmass.com/phorum/topic/45726-canon-28-of-chalcedon/

Quick Links to Canon 28 of Chalcedon
catholicchampion.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/quick-links-to-canon-28-of-chalcedon.html

The last site is dreadful. It’s proofs are given to a link (which is broken) that is meant simply to lead back to PhilVaz site’s speculation

That is: Catholics are willfully using argument that is referenced only by assertion. It’s simply to regurgitate the same stuff over and over again; an endless self-perpetuation myth.

 

[tdgesq]

a) doesn’t help you because it has ‘the Greeks’ going far beyond what Damasus did and b) it doesn’t say they only accepted the Creed.

According to both Norman Tanner and Schaff, the tome of Pope Damasus, which reflected the earlier council in Rome, was very similar to the decrees of the council, obviously without Canon 3. The creed was likely appended to this work, at least according to Schaff.

You’re adding in a clause that doesn’t appear in the text. You’re reading it as "The Greeks accepted it BECAUSE of Damasus. That’s not in the text.

I never claimed it was in the text of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I do claim that all of the historical evidence, including the letter from the council itself to Rome, shows that is what the council expected.

No. That’s false. It’s accepted as ‘ecumenical’ when it’s said to be such.

Okay, then the Council of Florence is ecumenical, because a bunch of bishops claimed it was ecumenical in the text of the decrees. But wait, the council of Nicaea wasn’t ecumenical because nothing in the text claims it to be. Is that seriously your argument? That if a council of bishops comes to together and declares the proceedings “ecumenical” then it is? It’s the beginning of the end now.

And, the text above does not show that the Greeks accepted it as ecumenical AFTER the popes had declared it such. You just choose to ignore that.

I haven’t ignored it, and I won’t now. I think that most of the East really believed it, but I also think the evidence shows they believed it because, and not in spite of, how they thought the Pope would receive it. You can disagree with me. But, unfortunately for you, you don’t get to disagree on what happened at Chalcedon.

The legates who were not present when Canon 28 was promulgated returned the next day and demanded to know who did it. The Council said that they had voted on it. They kept it. They promulgated it, then they sent it to the emperor Marcion who also accepted it

And this is where you lose Montalban. Admit that the council submitted the decrees of the council to Pope Leo for his approval and ratification. Also admit that they proceeded to ratify the First Council of Constantinople, which they also requested Pope Leo to approve. You’ve lost. It’s going to take you a while to realize it, but you will; although you will never admit it here. You should have stuck with what your Orthodox faith says about these matters, because those are actually decent arguments. Your arguments aren’t.

 

[Montalban]

According to both Norman Tanner and Schaff, the tome of Pope Damasus, which reflected the earlier council in Rome, was very similar to the decrees of the council, obviously without Canon 3. The creed was likely appended to this work, at least according to Schaff.

Show me that his approval of the whole council was followed by the approval of said by the east.

I never claimed it was in the text of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Then you don’t have a point. My assertion is that text says that the east accepted the council before Damasus. You either agree with that (and are therefore wasting time debating this) or you disagree with the text)

I do claim that all of the historical evidence, including the letter from the council itself to Rome, shows that is what the council expected.

It is one thing for a council to wish that Rome adheres to it, and another that, if Rome didn’t they still went on and had it as official, anyway.

Try again

Okay, then the Council of Florence is ecumenical, because a bunch of bishops claimed it was ecumenical in the text of the decrees.

So what?

But wait, the council of Nicaea wasn’t ecumenical because nothing in the text claims it to be. Is that seriously your argument?

I don’t believe I said that

That if a council of bishops comes to together and declares the proceedings “ecumenical” then it is? It’s the beginning of the end now.

No. Over the course of this discussion I have raised other points such as a council being called for by an emperor, and accepted by the church.

I haven’t ignored it, and I won’t now. I think that most of the East really believed it, but I also think the evidence shows they believed it because, and not in spite of, how they thought the Pope would receive it. You can disagree with me. But, unfortunately for you, you don’t get to disagree on what happened at Chalcedon.

I evidenced what happened. The papal legates called back in were told of the reasons for the adoption of Canon 28, and how it had met the approval of everyone at that session

That ALONE - which I evidence - undermines your notion and the non-facts you rely on re: PhilVaz site

that council was ALREADY ecumenical in its nature - having been approved of by the emperor and having representatives from all over.

And this is where you lose Montalban. Admit that the council submitted the decrees of the council to Pope Leo for his approval and ratification.

I accept that they did.

What I don’t accept is that it is NECESSARY

That’s why you keep working on this from the basis of papal supremacy and getting the facts wrong every time.

There’s a difference between wanting you to agree with me, and submitting my argument to you for approval and believing that you must approve of it, for me to be right.

Catholic apologetics starts with the absurdity of papal supremacy and works back to try and fit this into every situation.

So any instance where, for the peace and harmony of the church they submit (EVEN BEG) the pope to adhere to something - you guys jump upon this as proof. Did the council then say “Okay the pope hasn’t approved of it, lets exclude it”? No! They ratified it before they submitted it to Leo, and they accepted it (as at Trullo) without papal approval.

You need to look at the facts first and then come to a conclusion based on the facts. But, unfortunately you have the conclusion “Papal Supremacy” already made up.

Good luck

You’re also confusing canons with creeds, anyway. I get that a lot, especially when Catholics start quoting me Sardica

 

[Montalban]

There’s a kind of warped mentality that sees efforts of love as a weakness.

In so many cases the east appealed to the west out of love.

Modern Catholic apologists turn those acts of love into acts of weakness by suggesting that the easterners are submitting to the pope.

That’s just wrong.

What’s wrong also is this is compounded by the fabrication of evidence; not only are these acts of love misrepresented, but they’re taken out of context.

A patriarch of “New Rome” wished the pope to agree with Canon XVIII of Chalcedon. He may have genuinely been surprised by the discord it had caused because it was simply confirming practice - and as had been set out in earlier canons (both locally, such as at Antioch and generally, such as Canon 3 at the 2nd Ecumenical Council).

Leo’s opposition was not framed in terms of protecting some ‘papal supremacy’ anyway, but of protecting the rights of other Sees.

But anyway, the context for this is despite papal protests the canon was accepted in the east - as confirmed at Trullo.

 

[Montalban]

The idea that popes were necessary for Ecumenical Councils is shown to be solely based on modern Catholic apologists looking backwards and trying to fit historical events into a conclusion.

This is unfortunately the method used for every instance of fact that Catholics examine.

 

[Montalban]

In Acts 15 we have the groundwork for councils being laid.

Although a matter happened in Antioch people returned to the ‘mother church’ at Jerusalem - where James presided as bishop.

a) Peter spoke. All were silent*

b) Paul spoke. All were silent

c) James spoke. All were silent

James gave the ruling** based on what Peter said AND what was based in the bible. The council as a whole then wrote to others with what they had decided.

• If you’re a Catholic apologist you only note a) and ignore b) and c) altogether

** Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

 

[LionHeart777]

I was reading “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy” last night while my power was out (I believe it is by an Anglican.) I cam across this relevant quote from St. Theodore the Studite, a Byzantine.

I borrow now the cry of the coryphaeus of the apostles, calling Christ to his successor when the waves of the sea were risen up, and I say to your Blessedness who art the Representative of Christ ’ O First Shepherd of the Church which is under heaven’, save us now, we perish. Imitate the Christ your Master, stretch out your hand to your Church as he stretched out his hand to Peter. Peter began to sink in the waves, whilst our Church I believe he means Constantinople here] is still once more submerged in the depths of heresy. Emulate, we beg you, the great pope whose name you bear, and just as he on the appearance of the Eutychian heresy, stood erect spiritually as a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunders against the present heresy. For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, while* those who, following acient custom, have not even the right of convoking an orthodox one without your knowledge*, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say it to you, that Your Divine primacy should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive away heresy and that neither Your primacy may be anathematised with all the orthodox by these new voices without authority, nor that wills evilly disposed may find in this adulterous council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in oerder to obey Your Divine authority as Chief Pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the least members of the Church…

(Insert in red and blue highlighting, mine)

Source:
Again, I’m quoting from “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pgs. 301-302.

 

[LionHeart777]

From a pre-schism Syrian source, Theodore Abu Qurrah:

‘As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever.’

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm

 

[Vico]

“…it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them” – Lumen Gentium.22 at vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

“…it goes without saying that no temporal ruler has the right to do so.”
Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), p22

Cardinal Newman expressed this later point when he claimed that the church was given a promise that it “should have no master upon earth”.
Newman, J. H., (1909) An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Longmans, Green & Co; London), p255.

Q. 1. What is the purpose of Ecumenical Councils?

A. 1. In summary, an Ecumenical Council is a solemn assembly in the Roman Catholic Church,** convoked **and presided over by the pope and composed of cardinals, bishops, and certain other prelates whose decrees, when confirmed by the pope, become binding. An Ecumenical Council must be convened by the Pope.
catholicdoors.com/faq/qu342.htm
(emphasis added)

If you want to go ahead and again show that this hasn’t always been the case you’d be arguing for my point again!

That’s why your argument is so confused.

Normally I would not post so long after but I was not posting anything for months and had not replied to this one.

Some of the early councils were called by the rulers with consent of Rome (but not 381). I give some information below from two articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908).

I.

After studying the principles it is well to see how they worked out in fact. Hence the following historical summary of the convocation of the first eight general councils:

(1) … the First General Synod … It is, however, an undeniable fact that the Sixth General Synod (680) plainly affirmed that the Council of Nicaea had been convened by the emperor and Pope Sylvester (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XI, 661).
…
(2) The Second General Synod (381) was not, at first, intended to be Ecumenical; it only became so because it was accepted in the West, as has been shown above. It was not summoned by Pope Damasus as is often contended.
…
(3) The Third General Council (Ephesus, 431) was convoked by Emperor Theodosius II and his Western colleague Valentinian III- this is evident from the Acts of the council. It is equally evident that Pope Celestine I gave his consent,
…
(4) How the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, 451) was brought together is set forth in several writings of Pope Leo I and Emperors Theodosius II and Marcian. Immediately after the Robber Synod, Leo asked Theodosius to prepare a council composed of bishops from all parts of the world, to meet, preferably, in Italy.
…
(5) The Fifth General Synod was planned by Justinian I with the consent of Pope Vigilius,
…
(6, 7, 8) These three synods were each and all called by the emperors of the time with the consent and assistance of the Apostolic See."

Reference: Wilhelm, J. (1908). General Councils. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

II.

Second Council of Constantinople (FIFTH GENERAL COUNCIL).

“This council was held at Constantinople (5 May-2 June, 553), having been called by Emperor Justinian.”

Reference: Shahan, T. (1908). Second Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm