1. It is irrelevant to the question of the canonical powers of the Bishop of Rome and the Vatican I hertical view of the primacy. The 7 councils have zero to do with what we are discussing. It speaks volumes about the fact they have zero to do with this discussion.
2. The schism was CAUSE BY HERESY. A beleif counter to the true doctrine of the church.
3. The Catholics are heretics, this fact and the reason behind it has been explained to you several times not simply by me.
4. You should be prepared when the Roman's history is discussed to acknowledge the violent clearly non Christian deeds some (especially in Europe) have done. To deny it makes you look ignorant of history.
5. My satisfaction? Tell that to the parents of the kids Roman priests raped. My satisfaction is irelevant. Thee pope failed to act and kids got raped and scarred for life as a result. Why? Because one man can fail and pinning the entire church on that failable man is stupid, and uncanonical.
The reason why I ask about whether the first seven Councils are considered infallible (which they are) by the Orthodox is because then it would be a contradiction for YOU to call the Latin Church "heretical". You did it again in question #2. Your attitude completely ignores that you contradict yourself, over and over. It IS relevant!
HOW CAN AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH BECOME HERETICAL?
IF a Church can become heretical, how can you claim that the first seven Councils were infallible, then???
Can you answer that question? Can you now understand the relevance of my question? IF the Orthodox consider that the First Seven Councils are infallible, HOW ON EARTH could the eighth one NOT be INFALLIBLE? And the NINTH? And so forth. Thus, Vatican ONE IS Infallible. Whether you like it or not, simply denying it won't work. As I have stated before, the Church ALSO has always believed that Rome is the utlimate visible protector of the faith - even back to St. Ireneaus and the men of that era.
Now, the formula, the words of infallible statements can be written to better reflect the Church of 2005 - but the fact remains that the Church has ALWAYS believed itself as infallible - especially in its counciliar statements. Our beliefs are infallible, not the statement or words themselves. Thus, it IS relevant to our discussions.
2. We don't believe anything contrary to Nicea. This has been explained numerous times. The WORDS are not infallible. It is our belief itself that is infallible. One can only explain your intransigence by the fact that you hate the Catholic Church, despite your denials.
3. Those that claim the Catholic Church are heretical don't know what they are talking about either. This is simply explained by question #1, which you can't understand the relevance for...
4. Is it necessary to post the sins of the Orthodox members? You can keep your hypocriticism to yourself, please.
5. THREE POPES failed to act? Please. And are we to deny that there has never been a scandalous act by an Orthodox priest who was never removed from office? Hardly. Yes, the Pope can fail. ALL MEN can fail. But no one ever denied that. AGAIN, you continue to misunderstand Catholic teachings. Try to read this slowly... The Pope is not perfect. Got it? The Pope is infallible only in his official statements on faith and morals when speaking from his apostolic chair. These statements are quite rare, only made twice in 150 years. So please try to understand that. By the way, this IS canonical and infallibly stated by an infallible Church.
One final reflection for you. Why, when communities separate from the Catholic Church, such as the Coptics, were declared as heretical - but when the Orthodox separated from the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church became heretical? Quite ridiculous and arrogant, I might add. Where in Church history is the Eastern Church the determiner for what is orthodox throughout the entire Church?
Regards