"It is the traditionalist movement in the Orthodox Church which speaks so harshly about the Pope of Rome. The writings of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, since 1965 (+/-), take quite the opposite position, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as the two lungs of Christianity. Ecumenical Patriarchs in this period address the Pope as "Elder Brother." Relations with the heterodox is a topic on the planning agenda of the Great and Holy Council (Synod) of the Orthodox Church, which has been in the planning stages since 1923. Although, even saints of the Orthodox Church have referred to the Pope as a heretic, contemporary hierarchs point out that a synod of the Church has never so condemned the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church."
While it is true that more than one Saint of the Holy Church has indeed condemned Roman Catholicism as a heresy, it is also true, as you write (I think) that the Ecumenical Patriarchs since 1965 have said various so-called "positive" things about Roman Catholicism, the Pope, etc. I, myself, would most certainly rather accept the authority of any Saint than any of the recent occupants of the Ecumenical Throne, many of whom, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Freemasons (which has been more than acceptably proven on more than one occasion).
However, the statement that Roman Catholicism has never been condemned as heresy in Council, Synod, officially, etc, etc, etc, keeps cropping up, over and over again. It would seem that the statement is simply not true at all, but, of course, we have to know exactly what the statement means. Does it mean that Roman Catholicism has never been condemned as a heresy by an ECUMENICAL Council, or an ECUMENICAL Synod? If so, well, we have to agree with the statement, as the last Council regarded universally by the Church as Ecumenical was in 787.
However, if that is NOT what is meant, and local councils, synods, and sobors are acceptable to your definition of what is acceptable in regard to this question, I would have to strongly disagree with the statement.
The Fourth Council of Constantinople, 879-880, strongly sanctioned any additions to the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), making additions heretical, which, of course, included the "filioque." So, 879-880, the "filioque," a Roman Catholic addition to the Creed is condemned as heresy.
The Fifth Council of Constantinople, 1341-1351, denounced Barlaam the Calabrian's Latin soaked condemnations of the hesychasm of Saint Gregory Palamas. Barlaam later became the Roman catholic Bishop of Gerace, condemned as a heretic by the Holy Orthodox Church.
The Synod of Jerusalem of Jerusalem in 1672, while primarily defending the Church against Calvinist doctrines, again strongly condemned the "filioque," and as heresy, again a condemnation of the Roman church.
Dr. Constantine Cavarnos "discovered" a Catechism published originally in 1903-as you will see, although not a "Synod" or "Council," Patriarch Anthimos VI of Constantinople "signed on" to the approval of the Catechism, as did members of the Holy Synod-in essence, like a conciliar decision-deliberated over, signed onto!
"FROM THE ORTHODOX CATECHISM OF 1872 OFFICIALLY APPROVED BY THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE REGARDING VARIOUS HERETICS.
Many times we hear from ecumenists that the Orthodox Church never officially identified the Roman Catholics and Protestants as heretics. However, in the "Sacred Catechism of the Orthodox Church" written by Demetrios N. Vernardakis we find the exact definition of Roman Catholics and Protestants as heretics.
The catechism was written in response to a competition announced by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the best Catechism to be used on the Greek schools of Constantinople. Vernardakis' submitted his work, entitled "Sacred Catechism," and it was selected as the best one. In fact, in his forward Patriarch Anthimos states that the Ecclesiastical Committee which was appointed to select the best among the catechisms that had been submitted in response to the contest and declared that his work was the best in existence. This catechism was published in 1874 with a formal statement about it by Patriarch Anthimos, dated June 2, 1872 with a foreword by him, accompanied by the names of ten members of the Holy Synod.
From the catechism we cite the following passages:
"Question. Was it only of old time that there were (such) heresies and heretics, or do they exist even now?
Answer. They exist, unhappily, even now, in very great numbers.
Question. What are the greatest of these heresies?
Answer. The first is the heresy of the Latins, Westerns, or Papists, who have been separated from the true Church of Christ, and are subject to the Pope of Rome.
Questions. What other?
Answer. Next are the Protestants, who have been separated from the Pope, and are no longer subject to him. They are subdivided into Lutherans, Calvinists, and numberless other heresies."
Take from the above Catechism, p. 47. "
While these are a few brief examples, I am sure that with more time and research, many more examples could be found. Also, I am sure that these examples will not be sufficient, or not what you meant, or not acceptable for one reason or another, simply because you do not want to accept thatthe Orthodox Church ever "condemned" the Latins as heretics!
It is sort of amusing to me that the statements of Saints apparently are not acceptable to you, and only the official statements of Synods, Councils, etc., are sufficient for the condemnation of Rome as heretical. The amusing part is that apparently, it does NOT take any Synod or Council, however, to "lift" the anathemas (which were, in themselves a condemnation of the Papacy, no?), to declare East and West as the "Two Lungs" of the Church, or "Sister Churches," or any other ridiculous ecumenical excess-a statement from the Patriarch of Constantinople seemingly is enough for you to accomplish these feats, is it not?
Sources: for Councils, Orthodox Wiki;for Catechism, Orthodox Christian Witness article about Constantine Cavarnos and this Catechism-online.