catholic church is what it says, not what orthodox says

i was busy and apologize for not finishing that debate. hopefully i will this time. here is a good response to start with: I will answer your objections. But first, I submit to you a challenge. If the CC is not true,,, then surely it has contradicted itself in its official teaching. I have not found this to be the case. (I have questions regarding Extra… Nulla, "outside the catholic church" etc) If the following stuff is debatable, I'd think something could be found as per that challenge. If someone can claim infallibility and reamin unscathed by error for over 2000 years, something must be good going on. ---------"Supreme pontiff". You didn't cite your arguments from your old thread, but I took to liberty to boil it down: "WHOEVER WOULD CALL HIMSELF SOLE BISHOP EXALTETH HIMSELF ABOVE OTHERS."" the pope doesn't want to act as if he is the sole bishop, or if he is the end all be all, or that the other bishops don't have any authority. They have authority in as far as subject to the pope. " 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." He's saying it himself…. It's all about vanity and not depreciating the dignity that is worth the bishop. He acts as if he's got authority in the whole of the church. I don't deny the argument doesn't have merit, but it's not definitive. ---------[The pope is not the head in the infallible sense, here is proof:]"The Orthodox church maintains the the belief that every bishop is the head of his particualar church as. Canon VI, First Ecumenical Council, asserts that the Bishop of Rome (now days called the pope) is no exception to this rule." "Motivated by the same aim, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome; rightfully judging that the city (Constantinople), being honored by a monarchy and a senate, and equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges, should be magnified also, as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her."[xxxiv] Pope leo never authorized that canon. His papal delegates weren't there. Many historians use Canon 28 as proof OF papal primacy in the infallible sense. Rome was given priority as always,,,, the only thing that could be said is that Constantinople would be second, not earth shattering. That people would respect his opinion in the matter is showing. Those who made that cannon apologized for their taking so much latitude to the pope. That people might use it against him,,, is merely earthly people dissenting something they shouldn't do. Here is a good analysis of the Catholic claim with more details: http://www.phatmass.com... (I strongly recommend that website if you want to have a good debate with catholics. I have not found a better site at least in terms of accessibility than that one.) http://en.wikipedia.org... ----------"When Jesus said these words in Matthew 16:18-19 "I will build my church", the word build is a verb in the future tense which refers to the establishment of the church."I will build" means that new members would be added to the present church, with Peter and his confession being only the first "rock" in the building of the Church." Peter could be the rock, and other faiths will be built on his initial confesion. It doesn't stop papal infallibility from being true. Jesus all agree is the chief cornerstone,,, but even you concede that Peter is a rock, so that's an important point, but not definitive against the pope. --------------"The Orthodox church holds strong by the original creed established at the first council of Nicaea. This was one of the dissapointed steps that rome took into progressiveness." Essentially to my understanding,,, the actual meaning, the substance, of the creeds have not been changed. They just were disputing semantics. Even if the pope put it in the old way on his tablets,,, that's not teaching something of substance different than was taguth. And at any rate,,,, if it was something personal like tablets for himself,,, he surely wasn't teaching the whole church and couldn't contradict an official teaching. -----------------"Another prgressive view is purgatory. The official teaching of this theory wasn't established until the council of lyons (1274) and the council of florance (1439). Why so late?" A common issue is the lateness of a doctrine. The common response which I assume to be the case here.. is that it wasn't defined because it didn't need to be. It was just understood etc. Everything isn't defined. Often, the fact it took a long time to be defined, means it was so orthodox until someone challenged it. It doesn't matter if it was started by the pope as you mention. The substance of purgatory doesn't look to be seriously disputed by the orthodox. They agree with a state at least similar to pugatory. The idea of only "temporal punishment" being forgiven I can see as limiting,,, cause it seems like more should occur. But, it's totally feasible that if you die in grace,,, the only thing that needs fixed is your attachment to sin. If I stop smoking, of have to fix something I broke, I suffer a loss. Here is scripture which I find hard to say purgatory does not exist: QUOTE 1 corinthians 3 12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire. Luke 12:41-48 [41] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. how do you get blows in heaven, as per the second verse? how do you suffer a loss and get purified by fire in heaven as per the first verse? an idea of purgatory argument, makes the most sense.