A major change between the churches you claimed were practically the same is not relevant?
That original church splitting into two for theological (at least as a pretext) reasons is not relevant?
That’s without even considering that actual Christian history did not necessarily happen as the church says it did and early Christianity was far more localized and diverse.
The schism between Catholic and Orthodox churches is extremely relevant for anyone claiming either side is the definitive “church of Peter” as you did.
And it was in no way Catholic in the modern sense of papal supremacy. Orthodox churches are closer to it.
That’s not relevant.
A major change between the churches you claimed were practically the same is not relevant?
That original church splitting into two for theological (at least as a pretext) reasons is not relevant?
That’s without even considering that actual Christian history did not necessarily happen as the church says it did and early Christianity was far more localized and diverse.
The schism between Catholic and Orthodox churches is extremely relevant for anyone claiming either side is the definitive “church of Peter” as you did.
Why wouldn’t it be?