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

what about the church fathers which regard another bishop as the successor of peter?

For example, by Sochrates Scholastus, in his Church history:

"There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome's peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters; and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed"

And Sozomen also says:

" He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received their epistle, and accused them of having clandestinely introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church, by neglecting to invite him to join their Synod; for he alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null"

Overall, I think there is a very good case that Rome had a special place

don't get too sectarian

I have to go to the gym. Don't get too autistic (anyone involved), and try to be understanding and kind with each other

Yeah ok I'll retract I don't have time to argue right now

>Sit on quiet coach for train to London.

>Surrounded by Muslims who can't shut up. <:aaa:509492295599652864> <:aaa:509492295599652864> <:aaa:509492295599652864> <:aaa:509492295599652864>