Unfortunately history, tradition, scholarship, and explicit scripture don’t work in your favor.
Simply referring to quotes and arguments in a book will not help. The question must always be whether a large consensus of theologians agree with this thesis and the answer is emphatically in the negative. For sure Benedict XVI- sometimes called the theological Einstein of our times, did not accept this either as Cardinal Ratzinger or as distinguished professor of theology at the University of Rensburg.
First you admitted to the primacy of Rome until the Orthodox breakaway. Let’s say 1054. By this reasoning, the Holy Spirit suddenly changed course, took side, and went with the Orthodox. The absurdity of this is too patent for comment.
Second, you speak to more than seven councils but the additional councils are not recognized by some Eastern Orthodox in the way Councils are defined.
Third, any rebuttals on Eastern orthodoxy are seen as “canned” posts rather than an attempt to rebut the reasoning.
The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and “the seven ecumenical councils”—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.
While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.
One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical.
In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is “accepted by the church” as such. But that test is unworkable:
Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.
Thus the notion of eight or nine Councils is matter of opinion not universally accepted. But most importantly it detracts from Petrine infallibility.
The Pope’s Authority
Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible.
At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not.
In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).
In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”—in other words, Peter’s love for Christ is tested over the others. When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: “Feed my lambs” (22:15).
Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as “these,” as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.
The external marks of the Catholic Church is its universality just like the mustard tree metaphor used by Christ. You cannot have a broken branch of the tree claiming for itself as the tree.