All you have done is taken Farher Richard Price's comments about the 'Apollinarian Forgeries' (in speech marks because they are under consideration not because they may well not be) and have acted as though his reference to common opinion is therefore authoritative.
Father Price? I wasn't aware he was a priest.
As you know, Father, such a judgement is not unique to (Fr.) Price. As you reference, it is common opinion. That it is commonly held doesn't make it correct, of course (hence (Fr.) Price's use of the word "may"). It does, however, disqualify it for off the wall status, and does allow a conversation to proceed while mentioning it and not having to first stop to mount a full fledged defense. That will come.
That doesn't make the view authoritative at all since it doesn't say anything about the authority for making such a claim.
That comes from the many, many other authorities who share the same judgement.
You suggest that St Cyril was absent fron Alexandria for a third of his papcy, but obviously that means he was present for two thirds of it.
No, Pope St. Athanasius. And I didn't suggest it. I stated it as the fact it is.
I don't see that your suggestion that he didn't have time to use the archives has any weight.
I suggested no such thing. In fact, the opposite: taken under the wing of his uncle Pope Theophilos, I suggest Pope St. Cyril had practically all his life to use the archives. The question I posed is what use there would be for the archives to document definitely Pope Athanasius' writings, as much of his papacy was spent no where near the archives. He (and his successor Pope Peter II) spent a good amount of time in exile at Rome, from where he (they) wrote much, and were well known world wide, rather than just Alexandria. It would be like trying to give priority of King Henry III's interpretation of King Richard the Lion-hearted's policies because of his access to the royal archives, ignoring how little time King Richard spent in England (though less extreme in the case of the Popes of Alexandria. Like you said, Father, Pope St. Athanasius was able to stay in the metropolis for two thirds of his papacy).
Unlike Antioch, where much of its "school" was dispersed in the hinterland, Alexandria's school was quite centralized and in immediate contact with the rest of the world, further diluting the determitive power of the archives of the papal office.
Also the 'Robber Synod' was only so called by Leo of Rome,
Pope St. Leo coined the term, but he was far from the only one to call it that, then or now.
which is why it is also often given the name of 'Latrocinium', a Latin term.
the Greek term is Ληστρική Σύνοδος, used also, for instance, for the "headless council" of the Iconoclasts.
There are clear historical reasons for him doing so, mostly based on his own view of the issues in the East, which has been shown to be gravely deficient, and also based on the evidence he received about the Council, which was gravely biased. Again, just because a term has been used does not mean it has authority unless there is justification for it to be used.
There is, but that can be discussed on another thread.
Quite clearly, how Cyrilline something is entirely the measure of Christological Orthodoxy.
No, Father, it is not. Orthodox Christology did not start c. 376, or even 431, nor was it consumated by 444.
This does provide an intriguing contrast:OO have asked the EO here is it important to recognize the Seven Ecumenical Councils or just hold the Faith, but here we are told that it is the authorship of Pope St. Cyril (and Pope St. Athanasius) holds primacy over the Faith expressed in the works attributed to them.
For the sake of argument, let us say that the Letter to Epictetus is entirely, not just interpolated, a forgery, and not a single word comes from Pope St. Athanasius' pen. Does that matter for Orthodoxy? No, not at all. The Orthodox Church, in Ecumenical Council under Pope St. Cyril, recognized it as an Orthodox statement of the Faith, and the Orthodox Church at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon affirmed that. Even if the historical accuracy as a work of Pope St. Athanasius is totally disproven and discredited, its theological Truth remains.
Pope St. Athanasius' authorship only matters in studies devoted to the development of his thought, or maybe the development of the school of Alexandria. After its reception as Pope St. Athanasius' work, the veracity of that claim looses any importance, i.e. it's importance is confined only to Pope St. Athanasius' lifetime and those in immediate contact with him. Beyond that, even as a historical question, true authorship looses any importance except for a revisionist.
Satan's citation of scripture in the wilderness doesn't nullify its Truth. Orthodox statements by heretics do not nullify their (the statements') Orthodoxy.
If you want to turn to Father Richard Price again he believes very strongly that Chalcedon is Orthodox because it was Cyrilline.
I was confirmed in the belief of Chalcedon's Orthodoxy long before (Fr.) Price came along, even before I read a word of Pope St. Cyril, though I don't get the same impression of (Fr.) Price's beliefs as you do, Father, but I think the only thing I have read of his on the matter is his translation of the Acts. Though I would say that Chalcedon was was the most "Cyrillian" Ecumenical Council.
In regard to Theodore, I will quote Grillmeier who says...
The authentic Theodore always speaks of one person in two natures.
I can find the relevant primary quotations if required, from both Theodore and others.
If you can find someone at Chalcedon or Constantinople 431-51 or the Patriarchate of Rome 431-698 quoting Theodore, that would be relevant.
It was well known at Chalcedon that 'Theodore always speaks of one person in two natures',
which is why it was impossible for St Dioscorus to accept the term, especially after the first draft of the Definitio, which had used the Cyrilline 'from two natures' had been rejected.
IIRC, by the time the Definition was being drafted, Pope Dioscoros was not in a position to accept or reject anything.