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.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
True, and I don't dispute that.
The Church changing the doctrine is a historical fact
False. The sale of indulgences was not a doctrine when it was practiced (it is about the fifth time someone points it out to you today).
I have. And I have not heard any sort of proof that the Church taught infallibly or dogmatically about indulgences, than retracted it later. As usual, your history is all fluff.
I see your tactics...Make wacko, groundless accusations, then when called to put out, you shut up.
For example you made the brazen claim that "St Augustine never mentioned anything about Purgatory".
Proven wrong quite forcefully. And not a peep from you. As if the subject was never brought up. The silence was DEAFENING. But I'll bet that you'll mention this slander again in a month or two...
Another example from you, "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is an invention of the Fourth Lateran Council as a result of desiring to raise more money for the Crusades".
Another idiotic and groundless statement, proven wrong when I post writers of 100 AD (over 1000 freakin years, Harley) writing about the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And you have the GALL to repeat this stupid statement again, as if I wouldn't catch it? Are you hoping there is a lurker out there who will read this and nod his head in agreement?
Your idea of the "two strands of Christianity" is another perversion of history. You claim that the early Church was either "Eastern Orthodox" or "Reformed". Another crock of manure. I posted numerous accounts from the Father that showed that the WEST believed in the free will of man and they were QUITE synergistic. All I got from you is silence and a month later, repeating the same crap.
And finally, you have very little understanding between the difference of a teaching and an INFALLIBLE teaching. EVERYTHING the Church says is NOT infallible. The Church narrowly defines such matters and solemnly declares its infallible teachings. So until you show me an infallible teaching overturned later, you got nothing.