“Oh I know exactly what I’m talking about.”
Clearly not.
“Yes, as I said, they do not recognize the authority of the pope.”
But they do recognize he has authority. It is the scope of that authority that is the issue and they now differ from their former position.
“Nobody disputes that the Catholics can pick the bishop of Rome, it is his assumption of authority over the entire church (as “pope”) that is in dispute.”
Now. But not in the beginning. Again: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298
“Not really, the eastern churches were disputing the supremacy of the Roman bishop for centuries before the final schism,”
But earlier they did not. Again, https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298
“and of course the Copts split off and have been following their own “pope” since the 5th century.”
They always had their own pope - simply because he is their patriarch. You’re assuming one thing followed another. It didn’t.
“There is also plenty of evidence from the church fathers that the supremacy of the Roman pontiff is an invention that came centuries after the beginning of the church.”
Actually, there is no such evidence.
“It’s not a standard I am employing, it’s a standard YOU were employing.”
No. The standard I employed was simply this: ALL THE ANCIENT CHURCHES recognized books that modern Protestants do not. What does that tell you? That the Protestants are out of step. You then attempted to say that because Orthodox Christians deny some authorities of the pope NOW that that means they must have always done so - which is not true.
“I am simply pointing out that if that standard is employed consistently, it undermines the authority of your pope.”
And that simply doesn’t work because you are wrong in any case. If you knew more, you probably would not have made the mistake you have made.
“Now, you can choose to abandon that hypocritical argument or not, that’s up to you.”
I have never made a “hypocritical argument”. I wouldn’t know how. My argument was simply correct and is in fact irrefutable. All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue. All of that is irrefutable. You can’t refute any of it. Failure in argumentation is your only option.
At this point, you’re just arguing semantics and repeating yourself instead of actually making arguments.
As for that link you keep posting (just to a bookstore, not even an actual source or citation), I doubt it’s relevant. After all, if I posted a book by a heretical ex-Catholic critiquing Catholic doctrine, you would not accept that as a valid source, so why should we accept your book by a heretical ex-Orthodox critiquing Orthodox doctrine?