That's not how the undivided Church operated. Church doctrine was decided by the General (Ecumenical) Councils, or consensus patrum, as Mark said. Of course the Pope's approval was always critical.
But, as in the case of Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon, the Pope "vetoes" it, but the Council passed it, the Emperor approved and by the yimre a year was up even the Illyrian bishops, under +Pope Leo I 's jurisdiction accepted it.
The Catholic Church recognized Canon XXVIII at the (faux) re-unification Council in Florence, a thousand years later, yet the Latin Church recognized the Council of Chalcedon despite papal objections and refusal to sign Canon XXVIII.
In other words, there was no "Whatever the Pope says, I believe..." stuff. The Church was conciliar, not dictatorial, even though +Leo I was credited for being the father of imperial papacy..
I agree - with the undivided church. I was referring to this comment about the modern Catholic Church:
“The Protestant view of the Church normally does not understand the consensus patrem. In this type of operation, there are many opinions that may be wide ranging, but there are those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”
It could be I was mixing consensuses between modern and ancient...Protestants also have a hard time setting aside our current understanding when reading about the past.
When I read the Papal proclamation on a feast day for Mary’s Assumption, I was shocked by the ‘this saint said this, this saint said that, my beloved sainted predecessor said this, and painting show that...’ approach to doctrine. It was so far out of my background that I went to the Vatican website to see if I was being spoofed.