I still can't figure out how you get around the problem that the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox pose for this theory. Wouldn't we have to toss every Council after Nicaea and Constantinople I on the basis that Ephesus, et al., never were "received by the Church as a whole"? In one case (Chalcedon) a whole Patriarchate refused, and continues to refuse, it! Moreover, the Fathers frequently appealed to the authority of the Council of Nicaea during the Arian controversies in the fourth century, yet at this point Nicaea had not been "received by the Church as a whole" since the Arian and Semi-Arian bishops and laity were rejecting it!
"The king compelled Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople, to anathematize the Chalcedonian synod, just as he had [so compelled] Elias of Jerusalem. But Macedonius said that apart from an ecumenical synod, having as its chief [Greek: proedron] the bishop of Rome, it is impossible [Greek: adunaton] to do this" (St. Theophanes, PG 108:360a; translation by David Palm)
"Because of his primacy, the pontiff of Rome is not obliged to go to all the holy ecumenical councils; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every ecumenical council is non-existent, for it is he who presides in the council" (St. Methodius, cited in The Russian Church, N. Brianchaninov, 1931, 46)
"Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Roman Pontiffs] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles" (St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag.C 25)