Please bare with me as this may have been a settled issue among most Anglicans. Somehow I never get a satisfying response regarding my question. I remember very well during Sunday School classes that we were thought that the church accepted 7 councils. Of late I only hear about 4 councils (even here in South Africa). One poster on Facebook clarified that after 500 AD, there was meddling by emperors and kings in church affairs, hence later councils cannot be trusted. I am sorry to say, but this sounds like something a Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day adventist would say. I am certain that there is a more sensible answer to this. The 4 councils strike me as just odd. How did the Anglicans arrive to a conclusion that the last 3 councils were not mandatory? Did we decide this after we became independent of Rome, or was it a sentiment that was present prior to that?
The idea of "7 councils" is itself rather fictional. Rome believes there were 22 councils. The Old Catholics deny Vatican I and Vatican II so they argue there were only 20 councils. This is the way of things in Christendom. The notion of 7 councils largely arose out of the Eastern Orthodox; those of us who are not Eastern Orthodox have no need to observe their nomenclature. Our divines had observed the councils and their edicts; the later councils show a remarkable corruption in doctrine; for this reason historically we have not granted them full acceptance. It's all nice and good to say that one accepts "7 councils" and seven is such a magical number, but have you seen the actual canons from the later councils? They're outright atrocious. Nicea II states that anyone who opposes the use of Eikonostasis is a heretic.
Fr. Jonathan wrote on this in the Conciliar Anglican https://conciliaranglican.com/2011/08/03/ask-an-anglican-the-ecumenical-councils/
Here's another resource written by an Anglican - longer and more in depth. http://www.academia.edu/7926722/An_Anglican_View_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils
It is not a matter of 7 being a magical number, more than it makes sense to some of us because it's the councils that took place during the era of the undivided church. So each church takes out those councils that they do not like and remain only with what they deem pure? What is Eikonostasis? A lot of Anglicans cite the 7 councils so my confusion is not being cleared in anyway as to how the they got reduced to 4 (or when did they get added to 7)? I also read Fr Jonathan's blog and it does not get to the meat of the matter but rather tries to defend the Anglican stance that goes with 4. If we find later councils suspicious, why then can't we accept those Protestants who want nothing to do with councils at all?
The other article I mentioned seems to be arguing that Anglicans should accept all 7 councils as being ecumenical , but that acceptance doesn't mean we have to regard.everything in them as being required practice today. It's not a hard read, so better to read it than for me to try and paraphrase the arguments.
Wiki says that "whilst the councils are part of the historic formularies of Anglican tradition, it is difficult to locate a specific reference in Anglicanism to the unconditional acceptance of all 7 Ecumenical Councils, There is little evidence of dogmatic or canonical acceptance beyond the statements of individual Anglicans and theologians." It then goes on to quote some of those. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council
Of course, if you accept the statement in the 39 Articles that councils err, then none of the statements made by the various councils (however many there have been) is more than well meaning advice.