It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). When, precisely, did *the church* -- not one cherry-picked individual, but *the church*, speaking as a body, "always deny" papal supremacy? Give me a names and dates. There should be a long list, for something that *the church* "always denied".
>>It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility).<<
When, precisely, did *the church* -- not one cherry-picked individual, but *the church*, speaking as a body, "always deny" papal supremacy? Give me a names and dates. There should be a long list, for something that *the church* "always denied". I can give you a few that come to mind - though this is not exhaustive by any means. St. John Chrysostom stated:
The Apostles were designated rulers, rulers who received not nations and particular cities, but all being entrusted with the world in common (Inscriptionem Actorum II. PG 51, 93).
Then we have Cyril of Alexandria:
Leo did not participate personally in the council, but his legates at Chalcedon carried with them another remarkable letter addressed to the assembled fathers and expressing the pope’s wish that ‘the rights and honor of the most blessed apostle Peter be preserved’; that, not being able to come himself, the pope be allowed ‘to preside’...at the council in the persons of his legates; and that no debate about the faith be actually held, since ‘the orthodox and pure confession on the mystery of the Incarnation has been already manifested, in the fullest and clearest way, in his letter to bishop Flavian of blessed memory.’ No wonder that his legates were not allowed to read this unrealistic and embarrassing letter before the end of the sixteenth session, at a time when acrimonious debates on the issue had already taken place! Obviously, no one in the East considered that a papal fiat was sufficient to have an issue closed. Furthermore, the debate showed clearly that the Tome of Leo to Flavian was accepted on merits, and not because it was issued by the pope. Upon the presentation of the text, in Greek translation, during the second session, part of the assembly greeted the reading with approval (‘Peter has spoken through Leo!’ they shouted), but the bishops from the Illyricum and Palestine fiercely objected against passages which they considered as incompatible with the teachings of St Cyril of Alexandria. It took several days of commission work, under the presidence of Anatolius of Constantinople, to convince them that Leo was not opposing Cyril. The episode clearly shows that it was Cyril, not Leo, who was considered at Chalcedon as the ultimate criterion of christological orthodoxy. Leo’s views were under suspicion of Nestorianism as late as the fifth session, when the same Illyrians, still rejecting those who departed from Cyrillian terminology, shouted: ‘The opponents are Nestorians, let them go to Rome!’ The final formula approved by the council was anything but a simple acceptance of Leo’s text. It was a compromise, which could be imposed on the Fathers when they were convinced that Leo and Cyril expressed the same truth, only using different expressions (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 155-156.).
We have St. Gregory the Great, who rebuked John of Constantinople for making such a claim, wrote the Emperor Maurice:
Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of AntiChrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. ( Gregory I, bishop of Rome, 590-604 AD; Book VII, Epistle XXXIII)
Regarding an early acceptance of a universal infallible Roman authority, we have:
This one fact, that a Great Council (Sixth Ecumenical Council), universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or inerrancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p. 61). In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151) (for more discussion on this, see http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/10/cyril-of-alexandria-was-real.html)