catholic church is what it says, not what orthodox says

ok, your last argument is irrelevent to what i am trying to prove. #1 you said in your last argument: "here's an idea maybe you could respond to, i often heard prots say: the churches in the early church sought the answers of the pope,,, even though john the apostle was still alive and closer. do you think they were only doing that to respect the primacy thing?" Once again, the orthodox church recognized that the bishop of rome was the bishop of most influence. Is it possible that the people in the early church sought the opinion of the bishop of rome more so then the opinions of the eastern bishops? possibly so. However, where does authority tie into this? it's obvious that the bishop of rome had more influence, rome was the "headquarters" of christianity at the time, but the authority of the bishop of rome didn't exceed that of the other eastern bishops. my oppenent stated: "you never really responed to the idea i mentioned,,, of a bishop is equal to the pope on issues that are not defined or that do not conflict withe pope. they have authority insofar as the pope says something official." I can see my oppenent's point but why would the eastern bishops question defined beliefs? Also, these so called defined beliefs were beleifs that were establshed by Jesus and the new testament apostles, the bishop of rome along with the other eastern bishop's responisibility was to uphold these defined beliefs. However attacks on the trinity were brought to the table by certain eastern groups but were rejected instantly by both the bishop of rome and the eastern bishops.. Speaking of defined beliefs,i have a question. Was the so called "fact" that the bishop of rome had authority over all bishops a defined fact? I would hardly think so! So many church fathers argued over this topic, it is infair and unclear to go out on a limb and say that rome had universal authority over other apostolic seas. my opponent also stated "this is important which i'd like a response to: it seems like, at most, the quots don't prove what you say they do. and at least, it's debatable. if it's debatable, it'd seem you could show a clear contradiction in an official teaching, as my initial challenge to you. you did not do that. (unless you think the innovations accomplish that,,, but i don't think hey do, and this debate then really should concentrate on those.... is this what you're intending?)" Regarding the quotes, yes, the quotes can be left for interpretation, which is the point that my last oponent made in my previous debate. I'll say once again, make sure these quotes call upon interpretation. Lets do the process of illimination. When you read Gregory's letter to the bishop of alexandria, would you at first think that hes demonstrating his authority or demonstrating his equality to the bishop of alexandria? Call me ignorant, but i would say that hes demonstrating his equality. Dairygirl, do you believe that hes demonstrating his authority BY demonstrating his equality? I'm just not sure where you stand on this letter to the bishop of alexandria. I was actually hoping to get a response from my opponent to this: The Consil of Nicea (325 a.d.) In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. (Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles") This is evidance in itself that in the early church, all regional bishops were equal and had NO POWER to interfere with other bishops. I was also dissapointed to see that my opponent didn't respond to the catholic theologians remarks. The fact of the matter is, all bishops were equal in the early church but due to rome's progressive power and influence, this also boosted the power of the bishop of rome thus causing schism between the church fathers. The idea that the bishop of rome had unversal power was a direct result of rome's political influence. If you read the new testament, particularly acts and early church writtings, you will never find peter ever demonstrating his authority over the other apostles. He had no such authority! Infact, st. ignatius of antioch was appointed by both peter and paul to be the bishop of antioch St. Ambrose of Milan: "He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men...." [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34]. An interesting quote from st. ambrose concertning st. peter, demonstrating peter's equality. St. John Chrysostom has not recognized in the Church any dignity superior to the apostolate in general. "Of all spiritual magistratures," he says, "the greatest is the apostolate. How do we know this? Because the apostle precedes all others. As the consul is the first of civil magistrates, so is the apostle the first of spiritual magistrates. St. Paul himself, when he enumerates these dignities, places at their head the prerogatives of the apostolate. What does he say? 'And God has set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers.' Do you observe the summit of these dignities? Do you mark that the apostle is at the apex of the hierarchy–no one before, none above him. For he says: 'First, apostles.' And not only is the apostolate the first of all dignities, but also the root and foundation thereof." [Homily upon the Utility of Reading Holy Scripture; cited in Abbe Guettee, The Papacy.] St. Jerome represents St. Paul as saying: "I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry.""[St. Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, cited Abbe Guettee, The Papacy; clearly, if inferior in nothing (in nullo), then equal in every thing.] I never really intended for this debate to be solely on the issue of papal sumpremacy but this issue is pretty much the biggest cause of schism between the east and west. You can even see the inconsistency within the roman catholic church. Catholic theologians of this day try to reform and "downplay" obnoxious claims to the pope. For example: "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God...Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions...As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms...The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws." - From a Papally-endorsed encyclopedia: Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica ("Handy Canonical, Juridical, Moral, Theological, Ascetical, Polemical, Rubrical, Historical Library"), vol. 5, "Papa (Pope)" article 2 [see also J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin] (#1, 13, 18, & 30). "The pope can do all things God can do." - Nicolaus de Tudeschis [1386-1445], famous Benedictine canonist and abbot, in "Commentaria" (lvi, 34)r A good number of Catholic theologians are embarressed of these obnoxious claims, thus the reason they try to reform and "downplay" them. If my oppenent can prove that the bishop of rome had authority rather then influence over the other eastern bishops, i myself will consider joining the roman catholic church......until then, i will remain an eastern orthodox christian.... good luck to my opponent