catholic church's claims are weak n early history, regarding papacy

con missed a bunch of pages apparently in the initial link i posted in the first post. it is a forum with more than one page to that thread. con ignores the context of the cyprian quote. it isn't too much to assume he is being against roman power given how he responded to the pope with forming the council, and given his collaeque firmilian con continues to ignore in context with everything else. the middle ages stuff was on page two or three i think of that link i initially posted. we see a man named Olivi who articulated inerrancy. and a pope who seemed to be against the idea. both are quoted verbatium. vatican I stuff was posted later in that link as well.... and shows how the pope then 'bought' the council into affirming infallibility. it was very corrupt. the article that is linked in that initial link by me in this debate, shows that people like Aquanis can't be used one way o another to support infalliblity, because he is so ambiguous. id argue if it was true infallibility it wouldn't be so ambiguous from such a prominent figure, and then again with the silence from the rest of christianity on the matter, even in te roman church, concerning 'infalliblity'. i did respond to the quotes con gave. i said irreformable was an idea in the early church, but that doesn't tranlate into inerrancy. even orthodox consider early churches and their leaders are irreformable, but that doesn't neceessarily translate into inerrant. con argues that it would naturally develop, infallibility and inerrantcy. he continues to argue that the fact it took so long for it to be defined is proof that it was established. that sort of argument might hold up for something like the eucharist. but it doesnt necessarily hold up on every doctrine. there was no talk prior to 1000 ish or next to no talk, about the roman pope being wihout eror on faith and morals in teachings to the church. that is a very weak point for catholics, that it took so long to say 'the pope is inerrant' there need be no 'statute of limitations' on developing infalliblity. it would just according to common sense be establishd sooner than later if what catholics claim is true. and we see that it was not maybe to the latin and roman church, it matters only to the extent that the peope affirms a council. but to by far most biships, that rome was not the final say is very illuminating. the extetnt of disregard is further established with that wiki link con responds to. the tacit admission to the pope was in regards to 'the ratzinger principle' thta was quoted in the first link of this debate. it said that the west developed more than the east did, and that if there was communion with the east and west it would be understodd that they can follow their own views of authority, as that was what was permsissible to the earliest church in the first century, so it should be permissible now, and all still be in communion. that it took so long for their to be a split doesn't necessarily show the catholis are correct. it shows that authority of the roman biship developed so much over that time, tat itw as beginning to become time for everyone to start excommunicating each other.... a schism developed.