Dear Stephen,
Great Question.
A couple of books that come to mind that would be helpful on this subject are:
The Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorff
The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church by Clark Carlton
also this book written by a former Roman Catholic Priest and historian who converted to the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1800s is fantastic:
http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/THE%20 ... UETTEE.pdf
I am sure others on here could recommend others, but these will help you slam the door shut.
Basically, the Roman See was an ancient see in the Early Church. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, where Christianity flourished from the outset and therefore it was a major center of Christianity. Many other places in the West that Christianity spread depended on Rome as their guide to leading a Christian life. The Church in Rome was therefore considered as having a place of great honor and esteem and many of her Popes were saintly Orthodox stalwarts. With this in mind, the early Church viewed the Bishop of Rome as having the highest honor; he was prima inter pas or the “first among equals.” In other words, if the bishops of all the other churches sat down to eat at a table he would have sat at the head of the table. However, this authority was not above other bishops, he was only the first in honor. The nature of the Church is and has always been conciliar. This means that any bishop essentially only has rule over their own see. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople can’t boss around the Patriarch of Alexandria. Furthermore, it means that decisions must be made by a group or synod of bishops who come into agreement. This is give as the example in the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts as to how the Church is to make decision.
But ask yourself these questions:
If the Pope is infallible head of the Church, then why did they have Ecumenical Councils? Why not just ask him what everybody is supposed to do?
In the modern Papacy the Pope can overrule any bishop, where is there in the historic Church an ordained office above bishop?
Rome claims to be the soul successor to Saints Peter and Paul, but the Church in Jerusalem or Antioch could make the same valid claim to such, why aren’t they the head of the whole thing?
The Roman Catholics are heretics because:
- They maintain the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed not in its ratified original form but with the addition of the filioque, which is condemned by all the Ecumenical Councils and even some of the Popes.
- It is in their dogma (required beliefs) that the Pope alone is infallible and exercises supreme authority over the whole Church, rather than the conciliar Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
- It is in their dogma that purgatory exists, which is not part of the ancient Church, nor universally accepted.
- They changed the calendar of the Church, including the Paschalion to the point that they often violate the Holy Canons of the early Church (e.g., their Easter can fall before the Jewish Passover).
- They are also deeply involved in Ecumenism and a litany of liturgical abuses. Just see a few of them here (warning: it is very sickening) : http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007 ... abuse.html
The list of where the once beautiful, glorious, and orthodox Church in Roman has gone astray would take many more pages to explain, but the books above (esp. Fr. Guettee) will definitely convince you.