One thing is saying there is some error and such, another thing is modernists talking about le ebil sspx

would it be possible that V1 defined the papal authority a thousand years later after it was commonly used precisely because before that it could be generally understood by the church when an ex cathedra proclaimation was being made without the need for the Pope to make a big dramatic SITT?

Ah, right

@Dasick I don't know, but of course, such declarations would have to be things beyond random writings that span several dozens of pages about a topic

was the proclaimation of filioque as dogma an ex cathedra moment?

I don't know what are the conditions in which it got the exact inclusion into the creed, but an inclusion of something into the creed would label it as a universal doctrine

I still don't get why there is so much autism about le filioque

Seems like an orthodox trademark

whats the difference between declaring universal doctrine and ex cathedra? the papal authority is only with one?

Ex-cathedra just refers to the way in which authority is used to declare something as universal doctrine. Although we have used to refer so far to more individual statements, it would also refer to the way in which councils are declared ecumenical

Ex-cathedra is just the use of authority to define an universal doctrine, I would say

the issue with the filioque isnt an issue with the filioque per se

yall should know this

Yeah we already talked about it

Neither church teaches error

There are many issues that people have constantly tried to raise

But it seems like filioque is a symbol of rebellion for the east

"rebellion"

Or something like that per say

more like a symbol of the pope overstepping his authority

To avoid further heresies

Oh yes ebil bope

and trying to establish a hierarchy that didnt exist before

and as we can see, for good reasons too

It is completely artificial conflict

even Peter had to be rebuked by Paul

Yse, but that doesn't concern that

One could as well say that since bishops have created and promoted endless heresies, it makes no sense to give them any authority

it makes sense to give them limited authority

The same way the Pope has in a way limited authority, as in he is subject to errors when not under certain circumstances

the scripture says that "when there are two or three of you gathered in my name, I (Christ) am also among you"

There were more than 2 or 3 arians too, but that doesn't refer to matters of doctrine, I would say

they were gathered in the name of their own made up version of Christ

It defeats the point of considering something authoritative when we could just dismiss any council saying that the people were gathered in their own made up version of Christ

Overall, we consider that the Pope adds just a final piece by declaring those councils as officially ecumenical

Arius also shat his guts out

thats pretty clear as far as the Holy Spirit saying something goes imo

so what makes the council of nicea authoritative for example?

Hue. Where can I read the account of what happened?

Well, I would say it is the council itself, but there is a kind of quality seal by the final affirmation of the Pope. I don't think there is much difference in comparison to what you hold

isnt everyone acting in unity, as per the scripture, also a quality seal?