the orthodox church is not the true church

although my opponent forfeited that last round, i guess i will proceed to debate. The reason why i think the Roman Catholic church is abandoning their anceint roots is because the Roman Catholic church has and is continuing to accept developmental and newly added beleifs, some dating back to the tenth century, thus the schism between the east and the west. The list goes on and on but i will cover the highlights. One of these developmental beliefs includes the idea of a supreme pontiff. I covered this issue in my previous debate in which i am currently winning so i will not go very deeply into this issue. If you want to view this debate and see the other side of the argument, click on my profile and view away. This is just is a single part of a complex debate. The othodox church can prove by reference to the canons and early fathers that the pope is not and never was the universal, infallible "head" of the church, but only the first among equals and the recipient of honor for being bishop of the capital city of the empire. 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. Canon XXVIII of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), states: "We too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of Constantinople, the New Rome. For to the throne of Old Rome, as the imperial city, the Fathers gave suitable privileges. 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] Papla theologians clame that peter was given a special role as head of the church, but the general concensus was that Peter's person is not the rock of the Church, but the faith that he confessed and bore witness to when he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" [Mt. 16:16]. When the Apostle Peter received the "keys," or spiritual authority, it was for the same reason, by virtue of his confession. 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. according to the apostle paul, the members of the church, who are the church "are built apon the foundation of the apostles and prophets(Col.1:24)and "Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20) well, enough about papal supremecy, lets move on. The filioque (and of the son) was added to the eighth article of the creed. This is in direct contradiction to the words of our Saviour, "When the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, Which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me" [Jn. 15:26].The holy Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) issued Canon VII which decreed that it is not permissible for anyone to compose and write, or to offer to those converted from any other faith to Orthodoxy another Creed than the Symbol of Faith. 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. Pope Leo III, in 809, denounced the addition of the Filioque and forbade its use. He also had the Creed of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, without the Filioque, engraved upon two silver plates, in Greek and in Latin. He then wrote: "These words I, Leo, have set down for the love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith"(Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxae). Why is there a lack of consistency? 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? The Roman Catholic Church officially encourages the offering of Masses, indulgences, and public as well as private prayers and works of devotion on behalf of the souls in Purgatory. The Orthodox condemn the system of the Pope, or anyone else, granting indulgences. According to the Latin Code of Canon Law, an indulgence is defined as "the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin after its guilt has been forgiven, when ecclesiastical authority grants from the treasury of the church, in behalf of the living after the manner of an absolution, and in behalf of the dead after the manner of an intercession."[xvi] This whole theory was centered around the pope and his importance to salvation. It was a man made theory, not a belief that was held by the original church. I will post the rest of my information in the next round due to the lack of time. God bless, I hope my opponent replies