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?

the council were universal, including everyone from everywhere

The mark that something is legit and not, for example, a false council as there have been

Universal means that it defines universal doctrine, rather than literally people form everywhere attending

Because if that were the case, we would require every single bishop to agree with something, and to have bishops from all parts of the world, which I doubt was the case

but it was representation from as many different places as possible

especially the bigger and more prominent sees

Yes, because after all it is a matter that doesn't concern a specific area

yes

so why were the orthos not there when the bope decided to make adjustments to the creed 🤔

Because it was probably considered something small, natural and implied, that doesn't require an entire council. Still, I'm pretty sure it was commented in councils

adjusting the creed is not small

"clarifications" that change the wording have always been done as part of a council

In a way, but we hold that the figure that confirms a council has the authority to confirm that change, which would be something already implicit in the Creed

the Pope acted without the unity of the Church

Peter himself can be wrong and require Paul to rebuke him

The Bope gives unity to the Church. It seems there is a lot of unity, since all were forced to accept the truth of it

Peter himself, however, also had the final word. We just say that not literally everything that is held at any moment by the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit

"if there is two or three and the 🅱 ope among you, I am also among you"
#thingsJesusnever said

can i get a list of instances where Peter got the final word?

Well, regarding the things Jesus said, we can refer to the many instances where he is set as a prominenet figure

Lmao no, I don't have a handy list at hand, so feel free to research his treatment by others

🤔

and why is the Roman Bishop the successor of Peter? why not the Bishop of Antioch?

Because of the role of Rome, in his history and Paul's. It is undeniable that it was the bishop of Rome afterwards that was considered to hold a special position

>undeniable

Yes, that is completely undeniable, the special role of both the bishop of Rome, and Rome

suppose i want to deny it
what would you say to that

That the early Church historians mention hte privileges of the bishop of Rome, not the bishop of Antioch

And that precisely cities that rise in glory in one way or another are refered to as "new Rome", not "new Antioch"

which Church historians. can I get some names and quotes

Yes, 1 minute