Get better source and there will be no Jack Chick argument. Note that the Orthodox' views on history are treated with respect, -- because they treat history with respect.
Incidentally, adults do not normally make fun of people's screen names. Can we cut the "jokus" crap? Pretty please?
Yet we know that there WAS a conflict in which the Church first stated if one pays for indulgences they would get out of purgatory. Later the Church reversed that order.
There was no dogmatic teaching on the sale of indulgences prior to Trent.
Did I miss something?
I don't have any complaints with the Orthodox because I can't find any errors like this in their history. They are at least consistent. They are willing to step up to the plate and say they make changes throughout the years, adjusting Church doctrine. They believe this authority was handed down so how can I argue with that. This is their historical belief. If they said, "Well, we believed that 100 years ago but on further reflection we believe such-n-such to be a great truth." what can I say?
But the Catholics with all this wacky, "Apostalistic Tradition matching the scripture" is nonsense. Their history doesn't support this statement. You claim the Church makes infallible decisions guided by the Spirit, and then can't explain the clear truth that not all decisions by the Catholic Church have been infallible. And that is a historical fact.
You're only fooling yourself.