I'm asking this question based on a debate I'm having with a Protestant related to the canon of the Bible. My thinking is that if an ecumenical council ever had to correct a regional council it would add credibility to the regional councils of Hippo and Carthage that no ecumenical council ever corrected them. If an ecumenical council did correct a regional council then it still adds credibility to the regional councils of Hippo and Carthage due to the fact that no ecumenical council ever did even though a precedent had been set.

My brain works in weird ways!! Haha!

Thanks!

-Ernie-

Yes, it has happened before.

In 449, Emperor Theodosius I convened what was supposed to be an Ecumenical Council in Ephesus along with the bishop of Alexandria called the "Pope of Alexandria", the decrees of this council were heretical and it was condemned by Pope Leo I as a "council of robbers" and he convened the real Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 451, which condemned the decrees of the previous council.

It was probably about this time that theologians first started arguing that the way you can tell the difference between an Ecumenical Council and a fake "Council of Robbers" was that the authentic councils are the ones convened by the bishop of Rome , or at least have their decrees approved by the Pope

Awesome, that's what I was looking for! Thank you King of Cool!!!