The Canons of the Council of Ephesus express the judgment of that Synod:
II: "…these men, according to the decree of the holy Synod, are to be deposed from the priesthood and degraded from their rank."
III: "…we forbid all the clergy who adhere to the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod in any way to submit to the bishops who have already apostatized or shall hereafter apostatize."
Canons VI and VII make similar judgments.
Neither Pope nor legates "execute" judgment, but the Synod.
The truth is more complex than my opponent presents it. The Papal legates requested to see the minutes of the Third Ecumenical Synod, to see if everything was done according to canonical order. After reading the judgments espoused, Projectus agreed, using the words:
Most clearly from the reading….I also, by my authority as legate of the holy Apostolic See, define, being with my brethren an executor of the aforesaid sentence, that the beforenamed Nestorius is an enemy of the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty of the things of which he was accused…. [Session III]
The same is true of Arcadius. These men were not asserting "Primacy" but ascertaining the Orthodoxy and canonical order of the Synod. Being satisfied, the Synod requested:
Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shewn to them. [Session III]
It was not the Synod but rather the legates who had to demonstrate their own Orthodoxy.
We see Papal legates submit to the ecumenical councils, A Pope of Rome lauded in the same Council where another is declared heretical, many references of the Primacy of the Pope being only a support to the other Bishops, as well as evidence that St Gregory believed in three Petrine sees; no evidence that the Fathers believed that St Peter held my opponent's "Universal Primacy", nor his successors at Rome. Nothing in the law of the Universal Church validates such a position.
Mr Daffer's argument for Roman Catholic Papal Primacy fails to be found firmly rooted in the doctrine of the Fathers, Canons, or Councils of the Universal Church. It ignores the historical Orthodox Tradition of a united episcopate and brotherhood in the Apostolic Succession, both in chronology and thought. I demand that my opponent produce concrete, direct evidence of universal Papal jurisdiction over the entire Church-or concede that it does not exist.