[malakhi]

"Unanimous" doesn't appear to mean what we would think it means. I don't think it ever did mean that every one of the Church fathers had to agree on something.

Uh oh. Is there a special Catholic definition of 'unanimous' that is different from Webster's?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Well from this converstation I have come toseveral conclusions. Peter did not know he was a "pope." which kind of makes passing the office down to someone a bit difficult, IMO. Peter, didn't want people to think of him as pope, which makes the men who were appointed popes and walked around allowing people to call them popes and kiss their rings etc, rather arrogant gasbags. That if by chance Peter went to Rome it was not with the intention of setting up a "Chruch center" or Chruch goverenment, he only went with the intention of spreading the gospel. And the catholics are dead wrong and power hungry for doing exactly what Peter did not intend to do.

Becky

[SoothingDave]

Uh oh. Is there a special Catholic definition of 'unanimous' that is different from Webster's?

You can't allow one or two folks with a differing opinion originally to ruin the whole thing. There may be varying opinions and fierce debate during a Council. But in the end, all should assent to the teaching, even if it was was you were opposed to originally. So the writings before a Council decides on something may show different opinions, but afterward unanimity.

SD