[HarleyD]

You know this? Where did the Church alter her doctrine on homosexuality

Do you believe homosexuality to be a sin or not? I doubt if you would find the early fathers teaching people can have lust as long as they do not act upon that lust. It is a rather silly doctrine.

Muhammad was born more than 500 years after Christ, the Founder of the Catholic Church.

I believe 700 years actually. But his religion is nothing new under the sun. Muhammed might have put a face on it but it is mentioned in scripture:
Jdg 8:21 Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, "Rise yourself and fall upon us, for as the man is, so is his strength." And Gideon arose and killed Zebah and Zalmunna, and he took the crescent ornaments that were on the necks of their camels.
Jdg 8:22 Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also, for you have saved us from the hand of Midian."
Jdg 8:23 Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you."
Jdg 8:24 And Gideon said to them, "Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil." (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.)
Jdg 8:25 And they answered, "We will willingly give them." And they spread a cloak, and every man threw in it the earrings of his spoil.
Jdg 8:26 And the weight of the golden earrings that he requested was 1,700 shekels of gold, besides the crescent ornaments and the pendants and the purple garments worn by the kings of Midian, and besides the collars that were around the necks of their camels.

Islam traces its descendants back to Ishmael and there is some biblical evidence of this. Muhammad just put a face on it.

By the way, the scriptures also talks about people praying and making things for the "queen of heaven". There is nothing new under the sun.

All Church doctrines are publicly accessible on the internet. You cannot cite that there has been any shift.

On the Atonement from New Advent

It cannot be questioned that this theory [sic: the blood of Christ paying our penalty] also contains a true principle. For it is founded on the express words of Scripture, and is supported by many of the greatest of the early Fathers and later theologians. But unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion, which would seem to have arisen from the natural tendency to take a figure too literally, and to apply it in details which were not contemplated by those who first made use of it. It must not be forgotten that the account of our deliverance from sin is set forth in figures. Conquest, captivity, and ransom are familiar facts of human history. Man, having yielded to the temptations of Satan, was like to one overcome in battle. Sin, again, is fitly likened to a state of slavery. And when man was set free by the shedding of Christ's precious Blood, this deliverance would naturally recall (even if it had not been so described in Scripture) the redemption of a captive by the payment of a ransom.

....

(d) These ideas retained their force well into the Middle Ages. But the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement.

.....

It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the "mouse-trap" metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm's answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles.

....

There you have it, in the words of the Church; the doctrine of the Atonement was changed from what the early church fathers believe by Anselm, and then again by modern theologian. So what did they change the Atonement to? The early church fathers believed and taught that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins. This has been modified over the years to "... It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends,". So we went from a blood sacrifice to pay our penalty to someone dying for us because it's a nice thing to do.

I'll stick with the early church fathers on this one thank you.

Eastern Christians did not find this laughable before the schism.

Please let me know of one Orthodox Christian who believes the Pope is the head of the Church.

Your idea that the Church teaches its early saints were bigots is preposterous.

You better talk to some of your Catholic friends here.

Latin Father St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, did not apply this principle to Roman Catholic doctrine, so what is your point?

My point is that I'd doubt if you would get Augustine to agree with many of the doctrines of the Church today. While he often supported the Catholic Church, at that time it was just about the only thing going.
Tertullian-"[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Let me know when the Church banishes from the Church the homosexuals and pedophiles. This kind of goes back to your first point doesn't it?

[mas cerveza por favor]

Do you believe homosexuality to be a sin or not? I doubt if you would find the early fathers teaching people can have lust as long as they do not act upon that lust. It is a rather silly doctrine.

The Church does not teach this. If you indulge lust in your mind, that is a sin. It was sinful to have a temptation as long as that temptation was resisted. No change here.

So we went from a blood sacrifice to pay our penalty to someone dying for us because it's a nice thing to do.

No. The article reaffirms Atonement with God "through the blood of His Cross" but traces the development of reasoning on why Satan WAS NOT the receiver of the payment. Are you saying that Satan WAS receiver of the payment? That is the only issue you could have, since the Church fully retains her belief in the Sacrifice. Her priests re-present the Sacrifice at every Mass.

Please let me know of one Orthodox Christian who believes the Pope is the head of the Church.

St. Irenus did. He was an Eastern Christian.

I'd doubt if you would get Augustine to agree with many of the doctrines of the Church today. While he often supported the Catholic Church, at that time it was just about the only thing going.

Augustine's support of Church doctrine in his times attests to his general support since those doctrines have not and will never change.

Let me know when the Church banishes from the Church the homosexuals and pedophiles. This kind of goes back to your first point doesn't it?

Even though some Church human institutions have been temporarily infiltrated by homosexuals, her divinely guided against the sin have never changed, as the ongoing howls of protest aptly attest.