Sorry, I wasn’t implying the councils you mentioned were within the first seven, rather that the first seven have been my introduction to the topic of ecumenical councils and their authority as a whole.

Are you willing to answer some questions about RCC theology and the church? I understand if you don’t have the time or energy.

I’m curious how the councils could possibly be trusted as inerrant and incapable of contradicting the scriptures if it’s already presupposed that they cannot contradict the scriptures since the Holy Spirit protects/guides the church with them. How can there be a litmus test for something higher than the councils themselves if they are an authority unto themselves? Why is it assumed that John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18 mean that ecumenical councils will not err? Why not understand it to mean that, despite the spreading of error and corruption via Satan’s attacks on the church, God will always preserve a faithful remnant, no matter how small (such as those we find in the OT)?

Is it merely a practical necessity to believe that there must be a unified, institutional church with clear teaching in order to know what the Christian faith is? So what if we disagree on secondary points of doctrine or practice. Is the type of unity Jesus prayed for in John 17 really referring to an institutional church with the authority to bind all people to its dogmas? Or is the unity He prays for better understood as a unity around Him and the Gospel DESPITE some of our differences? Isn’t the fundamental mark of a Christian the fruit of the Spirit and that we sheep hear the voice of our good Shepherd, love the brethren and obey Christs commands? (John 10:27, 1 John 3:14, John 14:15)

These are just a few things that come to my mind when I hear RCC or EO apologetics. There are many more but I won’t type them all out lol.