catholic church is what it says, not what orthodox says

i am aware that orthodox say first amoung equals, ie primacy. "For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others" it does't seem like you should be continally pointing to this quote. cause, the fact he says "sole" kinda make this quote look dubious as to saying primacy only. i mean, it makes your point,, but it's completly argumentative. in fact, that quote could be said to what greg's real feelings are on the matter, as per even even that longer "wounds charity" quote about humility... ie, it's the idea of being sole bishop that's disturbing, or exulting onesulf beyond what they should. it doesn't mean he's not the prime one in an infallible sense. here is even a protestant scholar who said greg thought he was it, arguably beyond mere primacy: "In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever" (Dudden, I, 475). i think more specifics really need looked into, to deermine what the pope allowed others to disagree or to be independant on, or what the case was. but what you show isn't very definitive. "He wanted to demonstrate his humility not his authority!" (look at taht wounds charity quote) that's what you said. i think you meant, he wanted to demonstrate his authority, not his humility. (or unless you meant a certain type of authrity or something) cause that's what a catholic would say... ie, he merely wanted to demonstrate the proper himility, and respect other bishops discretion. 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. you have a valid point, but it's not explicitly the case. you're doing what you claim catholics do by reading into primacy quotes at catholic.com, cause you reading into this, as it's not explicit. in fact, the way you're reading it, could be also read as that the roman bishop isn't even primacy either. (of course, that's obivously not the case given other quotes,,, but my point is in pointing out how you're interpreting this one quote to be a little too much, necessarily) one thing about all those innovations you point to.... priests marrying etc,,, they're just innovations on something that can be changed, or would logically flow and aren't innovations in a sense of substnative change. ie, no one disputes that priests marrying is simply discimpline, not doctrine, and that that isn't an official teaching and can change. if people prayed to teh dead back in the day.. then purgatory naming is only a formality of what already eixsted. (you might dispute the specifics, but the point is that generally it already existed) kinda like, cahtolics kneel to the eucharist (i'm not catholic, only grew up one, but am taking their postion for information sake), cause they see it as a logical conclusion to saying the real prescence exists. orthodox remains silent on when the change occurs, so they don't kneel. this exemplifies the situation,,, they do things the old fashioned way, but that doesn't mean the new ways are wrong if nothing substnative is being changed. -also, it's ironic... the person you point to as showning how the orthodox church is correct in the authority issue, ie gregory,,, is the same pope who definied purgatory. (so says wikipedia) just ironic i mean. an orthodox pope, by your perspective, definiting something you claim as questionable. i know you're not probably bound, but it's ironic. 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?) in addition to that point about infallibility and contradictions... what if the orthodox decided to again follow the pope? and then the pope said something... and then the other churches disagreed? i am not sure if there's ever been that much dissension from what the pope says as fiinal in the preschism church. that proves that there was something to it. if you started dissenting if the orthocox and pope got together again,,, that's something novel. i mean,,, there was that canon 28, from chalcedon,,,, but, they listend to the pope when he denied it, etc, i believe. or at least many did etc, and apologized to him etc. that canon wasn't approved by the pope, so it wasn't taken as final, to my understanding. it starts to be a lot to expect,, that you'd say they followed hm for all that time,,,, simply out of a primacy,,, and never dissented. as to the lack of clear expression of authrity. you have clement, if you look at catholic.com, and others who are pretty forceful. at least, enough, that, it could be what the CC teaches but not super explicity on hte matter. take for example the reasoning of protesnt to catholic notable scholar, cardinal newman. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church. the main reason he converted though, was the idea that the churches never really dissented from teh CC,,, it's the way things always were, and that the structure of the CC was pope as head... and even if pope was head was only primacy, then even that structure was broken at the schism etc. it's not being ran according to the way it should. (i mean, i realie the argument that the way it should be,,, is off, cause of the CC,,, but i'm just pointing out this evidence as it is) 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?