Hello again Wondering, I believe that the RCC would have one or two things to say about that belief of yours 
Which belief?
I have so many!
I also agree with most of what the RCC teaches (as I believe all conservative Protestants do). We walk in lockstep with about 90% of their official teachings (but the remaining 10% is what gets more than just a bit "iffy", particularly some of their soteriological teachings, teachings/beliefs that simply cannot be harmonized with ours).
There's another member on here that has a problem with their soteriology.
I really don't know why.
Faith is what saves.
God is the first to move.
Faith and salvation are a gift from Him.
Then works are necessary.
I don't know what's different about what they teach.
They do believe in the sacraments - more than we have -
But they all seem to be biblical to me.
As for the location of the true "original church", was that not found in Jerusalem (where Peter and the rest of the Apostles were .. e.g. Acts 15), not in Rome?
I don't mean a place.
I mean the church that continued after the Apostles had all died.
A church, as an institution, had been established.
That church was the Universal or Catholic Church.
Ignatius of Antioch called it the Catholic Church for the first time in 103AD.
If that's all that the RCC meant by "Apostolic Succession", I suppose that I would believe it too. Rather, apostolic succession has to do with the passing on/handing down of "authority".
Yes. It could be that too.
Someone had to have authority.
Jesus gave the Keys to Peter. The Keys represented authority.
When there was a disagreement among the Bishops of the different regions, Peter was consulted.
I believe he was in Rome at the time, but I won't insist.
Wherever he was, he was a Bishop and he was consulted by the other 4 Bishops of the early church.
Yes, in 1054 AD, the East and the West split over doctrine and other issues (the two that you mentioned being at the heart of the debate, I believe). The question is however, was it the East or the West who remained truer to the teachings of the Bible, the Apostles and the early church 
I've looked into this pretty carefully, and it seems to me that it was the West (Rome) who departed (due to the growing number of their heretical teachings), rather than the East.
I think what you mean is instead, which of the two maintained the original teachings more.
I'd have to agree that the Orthodox did.
However, the Orthodox seceded, they broke the succession.
They LEFT....
no matter who was right or wrong.
Finally, while I agree that it's often difficult to disagree with historical "facts", choosing to question, and when necessary, disagree with the teachings/beliefs/traditions of what certain men have come to believe over time (especially as they get farther and farther away, time-wise, from the Source) is something that we must do, yes?
If this is something that we should never do (dispute "historical" beliefs, that is), then why did the Lord Jesus choose to do that very thing with many of the historical/traditional teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes?
Who won the Civil war?
Is it up for debate?
Will the answer change in time?
Just like the RCC, Jews (still) believe that they have an Oral "Tradition" (referred to by them as the "Oral Torah") that they believe was handed down, generation to generation, from God to Moses to the Jews who are alive today. So, while the "Oral Torah" or Jewish "Tradition" is certainly "historical", the Lord, nevertheless, pointed out to us that at least some of what it taught was not true, and/or was heretical (particularly when it disagreed with the teachings of the Written Torah, specifically).
Agreed.
He clarified teachings that were not what God meant....
they were teachings of Moses that needed to be adjusted.
Like divorce...
I'm not talking about this however,
Jesus had the AUTHORITY to change the laws, we don't.
The Lord made it clear to us that "authority" is from Him, and that it is found in the written, God-breathed Scriptures, which are also from Him (not in the beliefs of fallible/fallen men), saying again and again and again in the NT, as I'm sure that you recall, "It is written", when He began to teach the people.
On the other hand, the Lord Jesus also said things like this, "you have heard that it was said" concerning many of the Jewish "Traditional" teachings, and then He went on to explain why the Jewish (historical) "Tradition" that He was referring to was wrong.
This is becoming a very long post. Sorry about that.
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - I 
LOVE Italy BTW 
Oh sure. Agreed.
But He was the last revelation.
The problem with the CC is that they added too many of their own teachings to the bible.
The bible MUST be the authority.
They say their beliefs are biblical,,,but I find they go beyond what the bible taught and even what the ECFs taught.
For instance, some ECFs wrote about Mary...but they did not all agree on what was written.
I trust what the ECFs believed but they all had to agree.
And, of course, it began to change after the Nicene Council.
Agreed about Italy!
So many nice places to visit and also to live.
I'm in the Northern part of Tuscany.
I like it better here than in the South, where most tourists go.
It's mountainy up here - looks like Switzerland in some places.
