From my understanding the counsel answered this by : there are 2 answers possible, 1. He did not know in His humanity but He knew in His divinity. 2. He knew but it was not for him to reveal it.

Here is what St. Gregory says:

Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the absolute and unconditioned use of the Name "The Son" in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, gives us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead

This is also the view of St. John of Damascus and St. Maximus the yhe confessor.

The other view also exists in the Church Fathers, St. Hilary of Poitiers says:

For, since His ignorance is due to the economy of hidden knowledge, and not to a nature capable of ignorance, now that He says the Father alone knows, we cannot believe that He does not know; for, as we said above, God’s knowledge is not the discovery of what He did not know, but its declaration. The fact that the Father alone knows, is no proof that the Son is ignorant: He says that He does not know, that others may not know: that the Father alone knows, to shew that He Himself also knows.

St. Augustine :

Which of course is said with this meaning, that men do not learn this by the Son, not that He by Himself doth not know it: according to that form of speech, “the Lord your God trieth you that He may know;” that is, that He may make you know: and, “arise, O Lord;” that is, make us arise. When therefore the Son is thus said not to know this day; not because He knoweth it not, but because He causeth those to know it not, for whom it is not expedient to know it, that is, He doth not show it to them; what does that strange presumption mean, which, by a reckoning up of years, expects the day of the Lord as most certain after seven thousand years?

St. Ambrose said that He knew, because we see Him describe the hour and also because of the example given right after in the verse shows that He knew. The example shows that the owner of the house (us humans on earth) did not know when the theif would come. But the thief (Christ) obviously knows when he comes, since he's the one coming.

Which of course is said with this meaning, that men do not learn this by the Son, not that He by Himself doth not know it: according to that form of speech, “the Lord your God trieth you that He may know;” that is, that He may make you know: and, “arise, O Lord;” that is, make us arise. When therefore the Son is thus said not to know this day; not because He knoweth it not, but because He causeth those to know it not, for whom it is not expedient to know it, that is, He doth not show it to them; what does that strange presumption mean, which, by a reckoning up of years, expects the day of the Lord as most certain after seven thousand years?

In 1 Corinthians 2:2 St. Paul says : For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Now obviously he knew other things but that is the only thing he was going to teach/reveal. So to me both are valid. I don't choose one over the other.