[quote=Arbanon][quote=IAlmisry]
Have I misremembered your confession? [/quote]

All you have forgotten is your perhaps fondamentalistic like behaviour we have to blame not your only compatriot muslims for! [/quote]
Putting the "fun" back into "fundamentalist." That's about the extent of my memory on that topic. Not quite sure what to make of an Albanian reference to Muslim compatriots.

So, was that a yes or a no? Because you brought this issue up:
[quote=Arbanon]Moreover, nowdays, the greeks [by which I take you to mean those Catholic Churches who confess the Orthodox Faith of the Creed of Constantinople I unaltered] like a lot the idea the ecummenicity of a council is established when its decisions are aproved by the whole church and not simply by the signing dignitariries in the council. Example, they say, the council of Ferrara Florence.
If it is so, then, the decrees of Chalcedon not to change the symbol of faith, remain beaurocratic and non ecummenical, as long as in far western europe the doctrine mono ek patros was invalid, moreover that Constantinople I was recognised as ecummenical only in Chalcedon, nearly a century later. Now we can imagine how much later it would reach the far corners of west. [/quote]
Well, we know some of those from the far corner of the West who came to know:Theodoius was in Britain in 368, but on the lower Danube in 374-6, and then retired to the extreme corner of Western Spain, near where Pope St. Damasus, who was then bishop of Rome when Theodoius became emperor of the East in 379, thereafter issuing the Edict (380) in favor of the Faith of the bishops who would gather in Constantinople in 381 and who informed the West (382, if not before) of the decisions of the Council, which Theodosius immediately put into effect in the law by edict.
[quote=Arbanon]I have never come across of a reference in here to overthrow that the council of Constantinople I, 381 A.D, was recognised as ecumenical before the council of Chalcedon, in 451.
The quotations of orthodox historians as Geanakoplos and Feidas stand in all seriosity.[/quote]
The synodical letter of the Council, which you citation of Geanakoplos refers to, was sent to "Damasus, Ambrose, Britton, Valerian, Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and the rest of the holy bishops who met in the great city of Rome" in 382 at the latest, and, as Geanakoplos admits, it refers to the Council of 381 as "Ecumenical." Why he feels compelled to ignore their word, and go on to insist that the synodal letter sent to the Patriarchate of the West used the term to mean "the ecclesiastical areas of the Eastern or Greek-speaking portion of the empire", he will have to explain. It just does not fit the sense given in the edicts by Theodosius, the history thereafter of canonical regulation of the Church, the polemics against the Apollinarians and Macedonians/Pneumatomachoi, and most explicitely the expositin of the Nicene Creed by Theodore of Mopsuestia which actually writes on the Constantinopolitan Creed, etc. immediately thereafter.
So you can take the Hindus as your compatriots, and repeat your mantra, but its doesn't round that square peg to fit in that circular hole of interlocking facts.