Your post has nothing to do with the thread. Whether you think Rome led the west into error in the second millenium or not is irrelevant to what I said. The fact remains that the canons of the early councils specifically speak of certain bishops having specific rights or prerogatives. Your post doesn't even address the issue. Telling me that the pope led the west into error just avoids the discussion.
That might be the case, but it can't be ignored that certain bishops did have certain rights or prerogatives in the early church. The bishop of Rome wasn't just a bishop with a little respect added on. He did play a certain role.
That he did - the bishops of Rome led the western half of Christianity into schism and eventual heresy.
But who knows, perhaps the current occupant of the See of Rome or one of his successors will lead a reformation of his church, purging the dross (starting with the grandiose notions of his own position within the Body of Christ) and return his wayward flock to the fold.
I think that is exactly what the Orthodox Churches believe is wrong with the role of the Pope of Rome.
Many believe that his Church demoted the role of the Holy Spirit, and promoted the role of the Pope. It is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church not any particular person. From the beginning, the Holy Spirit was worked in the entire Church to preserved the faith Christ taught the Apostles. People, even large numbers of them, can ignore the Holy Spirit, but the Church as a whole, can’t.
The canons of the early councils specifically speak of certain bishops having specific rights or prerogatives.
And someday when the Church of Rome returns to the faith of those early councils, The Pope will have his place restored.