catholic church is what it says, not what orthodox says

I guess the point i will try to make in this debate is once again the abandoning of holy tradition since the idea of a supreme pontiff came in place. The schism about the Bishop of Rome is the biggest and most crucial schism between eastern and western christians (roman catholic, eastern orthodox). I guess i will begin by explaining what the orthodox church actually believes about the bishop of rome. dairygirl, i'm not sure but i think you may be confused about what the Orthodox church actually believes regarding peter and the bishop of rome. Please correct me if i'm wrong. The Orthodox church does recognize a role given to the bishop of rome, but what authority does that role give him? The orthodox church looks at the bishop of rome as the FIRST among EQUALS. Being the bishop of rome is a role of honor and respect. Obviously the bishop or rome had a more in depth role in the church due to rome being the largest of all christian communities at the time, but does this give the bishop of rome authority over the other bishops? Absolutely not and it is absurd to think so! The bishop of rome had no power to interfere with the other eastern bishops unless the other bishops abandoned christian teaching in which the eastern bishops could also do the same to the bishop of rome, and did! The bishop of rome had a primacy of honor but not a primacy of authority. The best anaology i ever heard about this issue is the captain on a basketball team. The captain (bishop of rome) deffinitely has a position of honor but does not have more of a position then the other four players (eastern bishops) nor does he have authority over the other four players. Only the coach (God) can rule the whole team. This topic will probably be the primary topic of this debate due to the abandoning of tradition caused by the pope The innovations of the papacy includes: the filioque, consecration of the holy gifts, baptism by sprinkling,a eucharist of unleavened wafers, lay participation in the mystery of communion, purgatory, the immaculate conception,statues, papal supremecy,clerical celibacy, the gregorian calendar, and holy unction. I hope to refute all of these innovations and prove that the Orthodox church is the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" I hate to cite from my previous debate about the bishop of rome but there are quotes in that debate that i want to bring into light. The roman Catholic church claims that papal supremacy has existed sinced ancient times but obviously Greogory (the bishop of rome) didn't think so. "I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. 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" Does the catholic church not beleive that the pope is the universal ruler? Obviously they do, so are they the precursors of the anti-christ? I wouldn't dare to give them such a title but that quote above would give me suspicions. Another point that i would like to make about this quote is how can you "raise yourself above others" without thinking that you had authority over them? Obviously Gregory wanted to drive in the point that no bishop had authority over the other. The quote is so simple and clear. My opponent tried to refuted the quote below that i used in my previous debate. " Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY." In regards to this quote, my oppenent stated: "He acts as if he's got authority in the whole of the church." I'm open to new ways of looking at things, but in this whole entire quote, how can you believe that he was acting out of authority in this quote? He wanted to demonstrate his humility not his authority! The reason why he wrote this letter was to refute schisms that the bishop of rome had more authority then the other bishops. Would it make sense to think that gregory had authority over the other bishops after he just wrote this letter to the bishop of alexandria saying in so many words that he was equal to him? Not at all. It's undeniable that the Roman Catholic church believes in a universal bishop but do they take into consideration this other quote by gregory? "It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall" Even catholic theologians will admit that the papacy has changed extremely as time progressed. The primacy of rome was an affect of rome's political state in the world. I will again quote from my previous debate. Catholic theologian W. Devries states: " throughout the first ten centries, Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilage." avery dulles claims that the papacy is a historical accident stating: "The strong centralization in modern catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of ROME with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal orginization" It is undeniable that the papacy as it exists now is of very late origin. St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.): "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian") Does this include that the bishop of rome cannot lord over the other bishops and have authority over them? Ofcourse it does! St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.) "Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles." St. Jerome hit it right on the head. All of the bishops are of the same worth and are the self governers of their territories and does not have authority over the other bishops, the bishop of rome is NO exception. The Counsil 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") more next round...