Help! Im turning orthodox!

[Leon_Miguel]

jimmy:

think :bigyikes:. I read that article and that was the beginning of my problems. If that is the Catholic teaching I can’t just invent my own theological viewpoint in opposition to it. I believe this is the link.

"Then, as now, Christians seemed to face a dilemma. If God could have made salvation possible for us some other way, why would he choose the way of so much blood, so much pain, so much agony? Wouldn’t something less frightful have been better?

To some observers, there are only two possibilities here: If the Crucifixion was the only means God could find to redeem us, then he must be limited in his power and wisdom. Surely an almighty, all-wise deity could have found a better way!

On the other hand, if God preferred choosing a horrible death for his own Son over other options, then he must be wicked. How could he possibly will such a thing if he could have fulfilled his purposes otherwise?"

see catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea1.asp for the answer.

 

[Wisdom]

Forgive my simplistic outlook here but to me its about God speaking though his church in all ages and all times. The catholic church clearly demonstrates with continuing church councils and infalliable declarations. The Orthodox postion is to have the church somehow frozen in time with no ecunemical council the past 1200 years. Has God nothing to say to us the last 1200 years?
The catholic church seems to me very much the church militant getting into the debate of the modern world, Orthdoxy seems to be in its own ghetto and not engaging in the affairs of the world at large.
Where is the shinining light on the hill today in Orthodoxy?
Also there seems to be a protestant outlook here on doctrine where everything has to be proven beyond my personal reasonable doubt. Look their is somehting called faith in the church that Jesus Christ founded and still works in today and never has left for a 1200 year vacation. The creeds call for the faith to be in the one holy catholic ans apostolic church and not any other forumula sorry all other churchs even our schismatic brothers and sisters of orthodoxy don’t come quite fit that criteria.

 

[Magicsilence]

:bigyikes:

Brother, are you my other personality? It seems like I am discussing this with myself. Maybe I don’t want to read anymore because this is getting quite strange. Sungenis has given me some problems.

Perhaps

Its nice to know someone who feels the same.

I was lying in bed this morning, and a thought occurred to me. Perhaps it will comfort you as it did me.

All the problems started when i started getting very heavy about the faith, trying to stamp out all sin. Doubts and confusion begin to cloud the mind, you begin to doubt what you have always believed. Now is the time when I have battled all mortal sin, it is the peak of my faith, the crux of all that i have learned. Is it not funny that NOW the problems come, just when I feel I am the strongest? It is now that the Lord has sent me my next and biggest test. Will i hold fast to what i have learned or abandon ship when everything looks to be going wrong. Now is the final test where so many fail, where, just when everything looks bleak, when God is not present in your life or you dont feel Him, when your faith produces no discernable results, when he asks us to look at ourselves, realize our absolute weakness, and throw ourselves into His arms and carry us, that so many reject it. We’ve come so far now, Satan is poised to throw us from grace, and if we stand up to Him by ourselves he will win. This is the final battle, the path is narrower than ever, and we cannot see it anymore. We must grope with our hands for the Lord and he will help us find it. Do we trust Him as to have led us so far? Will we let doubts shake our faith?

Now we are facing our biggest trial yet. Will we rely on the Lord?, or jump ship?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Aaron_I]

I am also having some problems with the pope(not this one particularly). I look at the whole office of the pope and I can’t help but think, 'did Christ want one man in that position? The pope is just a man, he sins, and consequently he should be living a simple life. Instead he is put on a pedastal and he lives in a palace. He has all these titles that elevate him even more." It seems contrary to Christianity.

Read Luke 22 with regards to the papacy.
Verses 24-26

Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors';
but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.

I notice two things here. First, the old notion of an overbearing authority is cast down. Second, Christ in no way denies that there is to be a greater. Rather he declares that the greatest should be as a servant. I presume most people on this forum are quite aware of the Pope’s title: “Servant of the Servants of God.”

Moving forward in the chapter we come to verses 31-32

"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

Notice that while Satan seeks to subvert all the apostles, Christ will only pray for Peter.

I myself have no problems with the “excessive wealth” of the Pope. Indeed, I am reminded of the woman in Scripture who poured perfume on Christ’s feet. The apostles were mad that she didn’t sell it and give the money to charity, but Christ had no problems with it. Besides, just like with the Pharisees, we are to do as they say; not necessarily as they do. Seriously, though, if you want to see excessive wealth on the part of a priest, you’ll find a lot more corruption from the occassional parish priest than from the Pope. The Pope may be surrounded by priceless works of art, but he’s hardly going out joy-riding in a sports car.

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

The role of Pope as head of the Church was acknowledged explicitly at least as early as the middle of the third century. Now one ECF’s view is hardly binding, but I think it would take either someone refuting this notion or attributing it to some other Patriarch for me to be convinced otherwise. Augustine also explicitly recognizes papal supremacy and by the fifth century, I could pull out a plethora of evidence, and I’ve only just begun researching the ECFs.

 

[Talitha]

“Notice that while Satan seeks to subvert all the apostles, Christ will only pray for Peter.”

Hmmm…"
My prayer is not for them alone… I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message…and see ll of the great Priestly prayer of Jesus in John 15 and 16

 

[DeFide]

jimmy:

Read Robert Sungenis’(There is no way he can be accused of being a protestant, he is a pretty conservative Catholic) description of the atonement on his website. I read it and I couldn’t help but think :bigyikes:. I read that article and that was the beginning of my problems. If that is the Catholic teaching I can’t just invent my own theological viewpoint in opposition to it. I believe this is the link.

.

I know who “heliocentric” Sungenis is and he is a dissident, not “conservative”. He attacks and distorts Catholic teaching. Pick up a Catechism instead.

I think I may start a new post about these “equal” Eastern Orthodox excommnunicating each other… which mightily undercuts their whole “non-supremacy” premise behind their schism.

 

[banjo]

Magicsilence:

Perhaps

Its nice to know someone who feels the same.

I was lying in bed this morning, and a thought occurred to me. Perhaps it will comfort you as it did me.

All the problems started when i started getting very heavy about the faith, trying to stamp out all sin. Doubts and confusion begin to cloud the mind, you begin to doubt what you have always believed. Now is the time when I have battled all mortal sin, it is the peak of my faith, the crux of all that i have learned. Is it not funny that NOW the problems come, just when I feel I am the strongest? It is now that the Lord has sent me my next and biggest test. Will i hold fast to what i have learned or abandon ship when everything looks to be going wrong. Now is the final test where so many fail, where, just when everything looks bleak, when God is not present in your life or you dont feel Him, when your faith produces no discernable results, when he asks us to look at ourselves, realize our absolute weakness, and throw ourselves into His arms and carry us, that so many reject it. We’ve come so far now, Satan is poised to throw us from grace, and if we stand up to Him by ourselves he will win. This is the final battle, the path is narrower than ever, and we cannot see it anymore. We must grope with our hands for the Lord and he will help us find it. Do we trust Him as to have led us so far? Will we let doubts shake our faith?

Now we are facing our biggest trial yet. Will we rely on the Lord?, or jump ship?

In Christ.

Andre.

It seems that you have answered your doubts. I would treat this as I would any other temptation. Remember, when Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Lord changed his name to “Rock” and said upon this “Rock” I will build my Church…and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. To Peter he gave the keys of the Kingdom. Christ did this, He will not fail to guide and protect what He Himself has built.

God bless…

 

[jimmy]

Leon Miguel:

Remember that the church is much bigger than a single author or theologian, no matter how skilled they may be - even Aquinas and Augustine held opinions that were later corrected.

Do you think that some of your issues may be spiritual overload - you have written a lot and have obviously read a lot but sometimes there is a need to take a step back and let God work in you rather than trying to solve and understand everything at once. Perhaps a spiritual director may be able to settle some of your concerns.

As for your comments about the laxity of the church, I think you will find this useful catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0133.html

They may be spiritual overload. It is just that I read the one thing and it seems that everything just piled on at once. All my doubts came when I read the Robert Sungenis thing. I just lay in bed at night and think about what if I have been wrong. I feel like if I would go to the Eastern Orthodox I could be acting as Martin Luther did; I could be leaving the Church for what I want. But at the same time I don’t want to be outside the Church. I have been thinking about getting a spiritual director and my mom has recommended that I should(I have not mentioned these things with my mom).

Thanks for the link, I will read it.

 

[jimmy]

DeFide:

I know who “heliocentric” Sungenis is and he is a dissident, not “conservative”. He attacks and distorts Catholic teaching. Pick up a Catechism instead.

I think I may start a new post about these “equal” Eastern Orthodox excommnunicating each other… which mightily undercuts their whole “non-supremacy” premise behind their schism.

DeFide, have you read Anselms ‘Cur Deus Homo’? That is very much like what I am talking about. I read it and hated it. I found it to be so legal.

I know about Sungenis’ heliocentrism, but a lot of Catholics, very orthodox ones, find his writings on faith and the sacraments to be very good. They highly reccommend his “not by… alone” series, even if they hate his heliocentrism and other issues.

As I said before though, I have to do a lot more reading. I can’t speak with precision about the faith and say how much Sungenis’ view is accurate with the saints. I have read some saints like John of The Cross that I absolutely loved. He presents a view that makes sense to me. But when I read authors like Anselm I struggle.

 

[DeFide]

jimmy:

DeFide, have you read Anselms ‘Cur Deus Homo’? That is very much like what I am talking about. I read it and hated it. I found it to be so legal.

I know about Sungenis’ heliocentrism, but a lot of Catholics, very orthodox ones, find his writings on faith and the sacraments to be very good. They highly reccommend his “not by… alone” series, even if they hate his heliocentrism and other issues.

As I said before though, I have to do a lot more reading. I can’t speak with precision about the faith and say how much Sungenis’ view is accurate with the saints. I have read some saints like John of The Cross that I absolutely loved. He presents a view that makes sense to me. But when I read authors like Anselm I struggle.

I mistyped. I meant, “geocentrism”, but you probably knew what I was referring to. One thing that you need to remember is that theologians and authors, whether good, bad or mediocre, whether they are saints or not, are no substitute for Catholic magisterial teaching.

 

[jimmy]

DeFide:

I mistyped. I meant, “geocentrism”, but you probably knew what I was referring to. One thing that you need to remember is that theologians and authors, whether good, bad or mediocre, whether they are saints or not, are no substitute for Catholic magisterial teaching.

I knew what you meant and I still misspoke. I meant geocentrism as well.

I know that theologians and saints don’t equal the magisterium, but it is not like these are isolated insidents. The Catechism of Pius X says a similar thing. Granted, that is not a magisterial document either but it does give an example of what was taught and believed.

I am going to start another thread on the atonement. I would like to see you guys over there to help answer my points.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Matt16_18:

Then the powers of hell have prevailed against the church founded by Christ…

I guess that would depend on your definition of “prevailed.” When Israel split into the northern and southern kingdoms, I wouldn’t say that meant Satan had prevailed against Israel. God still sent his prophets to the northern kingdom and was obviously concerned for the people’s spiritual welfare. Perhaps this is the case with the Church? And who precipitated the separation? King Rehoboam, of the southern kingdom. This is similar to the Great Schism. The Orthodox split with Catholicism, yes (though it’s not clear who split from whom), but they did so due in large part to the action of excommunication taken by the Catholic Church.

This is why I say both sides are guilty of schism, because both sides excommunicated the other.

…both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church is utterly incapable of giving the criteria for determining how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid.

You do make a very valid point here. The Orthodox seem to have a very hard time determining when something is binding on the whole Church. On the other hand, there is a suprising amount of unity among the Orthodox, in spite of this.

And since the EO and the OO are utterly incapable of explaining how the faithful can know when an Ecumenical Council is valid, it is all the proof any rational person needs to understand that the EO and the OO are the churches in schism with the true church.

I don’t think accusing the Orthodox and those interesting in Orthodoxy of being irrational, or somehow lacking something in the reasoning department, is really the best way to make your case. This is exactly the kind of triumphalist language I have found so discouraging.

No, that would be foolish – throwing away a thousand years of infallible teaching just because the EO and the OO have fallen into schism…

Hmmhh…good point. I must admit, I posted that suggestion in a moment of frustration. An actual council would be very enlightening…

Think just for a second what “whole church approval” implies…

Yes, this is all a little confusing. I haven’t really seen the democratic system work well in any church…

…they had to make up this incoherent doctrine on the fly to justify their rebellion and rejection of Petrine Primacy.

I must point out, though, that it is not clear that the East ever accepted Petrine Primacy in the same way the West did. As such, it’s hard to accuse them of rejecting it or rebelling against it.

Walking_Home:

Which Church does satan fear most.

Don’t really know. If I did, it would make my choice a great deal easier.

Which Church has satan tried to bring down, by way of heresies and such, thru time and continues to attack.

Well, both, really. It has often been pointed out that most heresies originated in the East. The Orthodox Church is also still threatened by Islam and is only now recovering from Communism. For long periods, the Church has survived in nations which were hostile to Christianity. By contrast, Catholicism has had far more freedom to expand. So, I honestly think that Orthodoxy has had a more difficult time of it than Catholicism has. Of course, I don’t think this proves anything either way. Persecution does not equate to legitimacy.

The key issue here is that I’m still not comfortable with the idea of development of doctrine. As the Orthodox have had far less, that gives them a bit of an edge. On the other hand, Catholicism feels more right, and I’m more inclined to Catholicism personally. So, please don’t view my questions as hostile; I’m not trying to win any debates here. I’m just trying to figure out where the truth is. Thanks to all of you for your help!

God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Regarding ecumenical councils. I think the eastern Orthodox view an ecumenical council as simply an expression of the Church. They believe that God directs the Church and protects the councils, but they do not believe that a council is meant to define new doctrine. It is simply a statement of what the entire Church has taught since the time of the apostles. I think in the EO churches they view a council as not saying anything new, only giving what the entire Church has always taught and anathematizing those who reject it. That is what I have percieved. I may be wrong though.

 

[Wisdom]

Wealth of the Pope?
That has got be one of the stupid arguments I have heard in quite some time. The Pope has no personal wealth. I mean what wealthy did John Paul 2 posess, photos of his family a rosary and some books? He has regular room in the vatican apartments. There are thousands of protestants ministers who live in better digs than the vatican apartment. The pope does not own the invaluable works of art of St Peters those are gifts of the church it shares with the public no one person owns it, it is the church contribution to culture it merly guards them. The Pope has no wife nor children to give his wealthy to any way and that is a problem protestant ministers have by providing for those needy dependents the corrupt popes of the middle ages were the ones who had chidren and mistresses out of wedlock and the pope had to provide for them and their wants and wishes and thus money that was not the popes was given to these needy dependents, the popes since then have lived by the law of the church and haven’t had this problem but protestant ministers still have this conflict of interest and what should be the churchs riches become a family’s riches. But hey why be logical about this?

 

[SFH]

Magicsilence:

I dont know why but im feeling a pull towards orthodoxy.

I guess i have never really researched it before, but the more i read the more it seems like what they preach as doctrine is what the disciples believed.

Does anyone know how i feel?

Power hungry popes perhaps have jarred my confidence.

I dont really know much about the schism, except an article ive read from the Catholic encyclopedia which as far as i can tell is very biased.

Help!

In Christ.

Andre.

No need to panic. As you may or may not know, the Catholic Church has many rites besides the Latin Rite. The Melkite Rite, the Romanian Rite, and the Italo-Albanian Rite are all in full communion with Rome. I suggest that you contact a priest in one of those rites and talk to him about why they decided to rejoin the Catholic Church (many of them were former “Orthodox” who returned to Catholicism at the end of the Middle Ages). Perhaps you might even want to switch rites from the Latin Rite to the Melkite Rite.

You could also read the writings of St. Irenaeus and St. Ignatius of Antioch. Don’t read anyone’s commentary on them because everyone tries to put a spin on them. Just read a good translation (I prefer the translation done by the Oxford movement even though it’s Anglican). Then ask yourself what church best answers to their descriptions. You could also read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Ask yourself which of the churches (i.e., Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexander) was the lead church that the other churches always seemed to turn to during the first three centuries of Christianity’s existence.

And lastly, pray the Rosary. More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.

 

[Wisdom]

Power Hungry Popes?
I really doubt you have observed this in your life time your father’s life time or your granfathers lifetime or your great grandfathers lifetime, well you get the point many of the Eastern Patriarchs had an unholy alliance with the powers of the Roman empire as well, if we were to judge christainity by the universal holiness of the clergy all church fall very short. The church is holy becaused Jesus christ founded the church not because the clergy is impecciable, God forbid because the church was flawed even within the text of the holy scriptures in its infancy.

 

[Matt16_18]

The Iambic Pen:

The Orthodox seem to have a very hard time determining when something is binding on the whole Church.

And why should that be? Why would Christ found a church, and then leave us with no way of knowing what is supposed to be taught in his church? Only in Protestantism and Orthodoxy is it “hard” to determine when something is binding on the whole Church. It just isn’t rational to think that Christ would give his life for the truth, and then leave us with no way of knowing what that truth is.

It is rational to believe that either the Catholic Church, or the EO is protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit. But if you believe both the Catholic Church and the EO are in schism and teaching error, then Satan has prevailed against Christ’s Church. You must decide which Church is in schism - there is no option for believing both the Catholic Church and the EO are teaching error. For if that is true, you might as well stay a Protestant, since no one can know what the truth is, and we must all be our own popes. Pick and choose, and then do the best you can by following the “pope in your gut” - is that what Christ taught?

On the other hand, there is a suprising amount of unity among the Orthodox, in spite of this.

How can you possibly know that there is a “surprising amount of unity” among the Orthodox if it is hard to know what the Orthodox believe is binding on the whole Church?

The Orthodox only recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, (seven which the Catholic Church also recognizes as valid). Besides the first seven Ecumenical Councils, what other sources can you quote that clearly states what ALL Orthodox churches confess? There is nothing you can quote.

It is impossible for the Orthodox to produce a document similar to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that is why you see only elementary catechisms produced by individual bishops - and even those don’t agree with each other. In Orthodoxy, nearly everything is “theological opinion”, since the Orthodox do not know how to definitively define doctrine. When nearly everything is “theological opinion” that is not binding, then it is easy to claim that there is “unity” on what little there is that is claimed to be binding. But even then, the Orthodox cannot tell you how they would definitively settle a dispute about the interpretation of dogmas defined by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, since they would not know when the Magisterium has spoken infallibly. They can’t know that, since they do not know what it means when they say the “whole church” must “approve” the teachings of their bishops!

An actual council would be very enlightening…

Trent is a valid Ecumenical Council - and it cleared up a lot of questions that Protestants might have. Here we see the church founded by Christ doing exactly what she must do when confronted with widespread heresy. OTH, the development of doctrine in the EO has fallen into stagnation for 1200 years. Much “theological opinion” in the EO is heresy, but the EO have no way of correcting it, since again, they do not know what it means when they say the “whole church” must “approve” the teachings of their bishops.

I guess that would depend on your definition of “prevailed.” When Israel split into the northern and southern kingdoms, I wouldn’t say that meant Satan had prevailed against Israel.

Not against all of Israel, but Satan did prevail against the entire Northern Kingdom. Only a remnant faithful survived in Judah. Jesus has only promised that a remnant will survive among his Church, because during the great apostasy, many will fall away – just as many fell away in Israel.

The greatest proof that the Catholic Church is the true church is her unbending stand on divorce and artificial sterilization. She is the ONLY institution that continues to teach against these evils, even though at one time EVERY Christian body, Orthodox and Protestant, taught divorce and artificial sterilization were evils.

Oral contraceptives are nothing new, and neither are sheep skin condoms. The ancients had oral contraceptives and condoms, even though the oral contraceptives were full of painful side effects. Catholic Answers’ “The Fathers Know Best” articles provide the relavant quotes against oral contraception.

The Catholic Church teaches the hardest, most uncompromising moral doctrine, and that means she must be Christ’s church, since Christ taught the we must be perfect (Matt 5:48). Every other Chrisitan institution has sold out and compromised on what was once accepted as normative moral teaching by all Christian institutions.

This is why I say both sides are guilty of schism, because both sides excommunicated the other.

Schismatic bishops have no authority from God to excommunicate the faithful bishops.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Iambic Pen:

The key issue here is that I’m still not comfortable with the idea of development of doctrine.

Doctrinal development is not a bad thing, the issue is the extent of that development.
The truth is major development really exists in early Christian history and there are many examples, just off the top of my head:

1)Pennance - when someone did a major sin like fornication they were subject to years of pennance. Later on the time frame reduced to a few hours if even that.

2)Councils - the first Ecumenical Council was in 325AD, thats about 250 years after the Apostles died. That council set the stage for the idea of EC’s and for multiple follow up councils.

3)The theology on the Holy Trinity, the word “Trinity” is even an “invention”. So much has been written on this issue in Councils and ECF’s.

4)Validity of Sacraments of heretics/schismatics.

5)Defining the Canon of Scripture

These are just a few of the issues that were not been rock solid from the first days of the Church but later become more clearly laid out. Some people have the idea that the their position is so true to its “original form” that they could walk up on the day of Pentecost and talk with the Apostles and find out they totally agree with them, thats not true.

 

[Georgess]

Some of the difficulty , esp. for those of the Eastern Rite churches might be the subtle leaven - that accepting what is considered of 'the West ’ is somehow not right !

The Lord took Judea as His Birthplace ; any teaching or tradition that come trhough His Church and His appointed authority , hence is of ‘the center’ - even if geographically it is now Rome - and hence fully belong to The East and the West !

And this include the beautiful devotions - esp. Eucharistic Adoration ; The Catholic Church also gives enough importance to veneration of icons - a healthy mature attitude but as exhorted hy Pope JohnPaul11,we also know what is The Place of Eucharistic Adoration and that veneration of icons cannot relace that - this diffrence in understanding might to some extent ,be also an icon of our diffrences !

The promise of The Lord , that in unity the world would believe and the devastation of atheism in a country that has resisted many humble efforts- esp. by Pope John Paul11 ; as we get ready to observe the Last Supper and the wahing of the feet, he would be someone to think of : as The Mercy Pope , how he tried !

True , dogmas and doctrines are important , as long as they don’t divert attention from trying to strain out gnats and then swallow the camels- of resentment for old/very old wrongs , or
even efforts at maligning the brethren who have the Gift of The Holy Spirit , to recognise that accepting the importance of unity is a gift of The Father !

After all children who receieve Eucharist and confirmation , even though not fully knowledgeable about all the intricasies of The Faith , receive graces - through the power and Promise of The Lord !

May the prayers of the Apostles and saints be with us , and help us to be able to trust !

Jesus , I trust in You !

(and in Your Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, her sacraments and teachings!)

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Catholic Dude:

Doctrinal development is not a bad thing, the issue is the extent of that development.
The truth is major development really exists in early Christian history and there are many examples, just off the top of my head:

1)Pennance - when someone did a major sin like fornication they were subject to years of pennance. Later on the time frame reduced to a few hours if even that.

2)Councils - the first Ecumenical Council was in 325AD, thats about 250 years after the Apostles died. That council set the stage for the idea of EC’s and for multiple follow up councils.

3)The theology on the Holy Trinity, the word “Trinity” is even an “invention”. So much has been written on this issue in Councils and ECF’s.

4)Validity of Sacraments of heretics/schismatics.

5)Defining the Canon of Scripture

These are just a few of the issues that were not been rock solid from the first days of the Church but later become more clearly laid out. Some people have the idea that the their position is so true to its “original form” that they could walk up on the day of Pentecost and talk with the Apostles and find out they totally agree with them, thats not true.

Exactly. Doctrinal development does not happen till one of our doctrines is severely attacked by heretics. Development just defines the doctrine which was previously believed. The Eastern Ortohdox like to claim that there were no instances of indulgences in the early Church, yet they had basically the same thing called “Absolution Certificates” up until about 100 years ago. Orthodoxy changed its position regarding divorce and remarriage so as to allow an emperor to get a divorce. They are not teaching that artificial birth control is always wrong. They don’t teach that abortions are always wrong. We also see instances of indulgences from the Catholic understanding happening from documentation in at least the 3rd century, and before (scriptural). Tertullian called the Pope the “Supreme Pontiff” in the 3rd century (220 a.d.). Now, while Turtulllian may have been using that sarcastically, he would have not done that if the pope then was not claiming to be the Universal Head of the visible Catholic Church. Jesus Christ is our invisible Head.
Turtellian:

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus7 -that is, the bishop of bishops8 -issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation! She, the true, the modest, the saintly, shall be free from stain even of her ears. She has none to whom to make such a promise; and if she have had, she does not make it; since even the earthly temple of God can sooner have been called by the Lord a "den of robbers,"9 than of adulterers and fornicators.

So even this heretic in 220 a.d. attests that the pope was the supreme head of the Universal Church and records the Pope granting indulgences this early.

In addition, the Council of Chalcedon also calls the Pope the Head of the Church. We also have instances of Popes calling themselves the Head of the Church and continuing to act in this manner up until 1054 a.d. Also at the Council of Florence, the majority of Orthodox bishops, besides one, submitted to the authority of the Pope of Rome. Were all of these bishops wrong and one was right? Hmm.