these three held this theory mentioned previously that unless multiple patriarchates were present than a council is not ecumenical. however they are not the only ones. they were the latest to express their opinions publicly as current cardinals under the reigning pontiff of the time as far as i know
Ok, so I understood your argument.
Personally, I do not think their position is valid, as, for instance, it ignores the fact the Sees were outside the Church.
Makes no sense. If a See is lost to Heresy or Schism, why would they ever participate to an Ecumenical Council, or even be invited to one by the reigning Pontiff.
And it would limit the Supremacy and Sovereignty of the Pontiff by means of collegiality with the other "patriarchs", closely to a primus inter pares as the Eastern Schismatics understand it.
Also, what is even the position of the Church about the very nature of the 5 Sees?
Do they eternally have an actual higher status, canonically, than any other Cardinalate?