The Bishop of rome (pope) was not the sole authority or "final say" of the church.

I must admit that I ran out of characters to refute the citation and interpretation of my opponent on St. Gregory. Let me provide (as I did with St. Augustine and how I said earlier) a different interpretation and view of St. Gregory's personal view of Papal control. St. Gregory was Pope for the Roman Catholic Church. By the time he became Pope, the Papacy had solidified their decrees and doctrines on the power of the Pope. St. Gregory already knew what it entailed to be Pope- Vicar of Christ. If St. Gregory believed as what my opponent is claiming, we must rewrite the history books and take the "Saint" out of his name for he would have lived a double standard; he would have been a hypocrite to his own beliefs. If St. Gregory truly believed that the Bishop of Rome had the same extension of authority as other Bishops, why would he accept the position of Pope when he very well knew what that entitled? I think this calls for a new interpretation: The following quotation, all the more valuable as coming from a Protestant authority, indicates very clearly St. Gregory's strong belief in Papal Jurisdiction: "In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever" (Dudden, I, 475). In view of later developments Gregory's dealings with the Oriental Churches, and with Constantinople in particular, have a special importance. There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, l, he speaks of "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches", and in Epp., V, cliv, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, l; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii). This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; "As regards the Church of Constantinople," he writes in Epp., IX, xxvi, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it." At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. And thus I have interpreted it another way. Let me move on to my opponents next point "If the roman catholic theory concerning the bishop of rome was established by Christ and "set in stone" so to say, then why was there so many questions among the church fathers?..." My opponent has a valid point. But as I did in the very outset of this debate, I set my criterion to be 2 Timothy 3:16- "All scripture... is profitable for DOCTRINE, REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS" The reason their was so much dispute amongst the Church Fathers was because their is no explicit "CONSTITUTION" established by Christ to lay out how the future Christian Church would be run; for God's sake, the Man-God Jesus spoke in freakin parables?!!? I don't believe Jesus wantes to be explicit with everything, except that he was the Son of God. As 2 Timothy states, doctrine can be created and revised whenever. Which leads to my next point. The Council of Nicea was invalidated partially, by later doctrine that was "CORRECTED" by the Second Council of Nicea in 787, which solidified Papal control. My opponent uses St. Jerome and St. Cyprian, authorities of the early Church, but as I have shown by reinterpreting the most important quote from St. Gregory (which would carry much weight on the voter on whichever interpretation they take), we can interpret the Church Fathers and future theologians in different ways. And so I carry this argument from my round 2 in refuting my opponents quotes of St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, and others he may have in mind: I agree with my opponent in saying that Peter was no greater individually than any other of the Apostles. Just as how no Jew is considered better than any other individual, in Christian doctrine, even though they are the "Chosen People." So rather than Jesus' choosing of Peter being of a moral nature, we must assume that it was that of authority. Jesus preference of Peter for responsibility, lies under the notion that Jesus felt that Peter was best suited as leader of the Christian faithful once He was gone. But again, let me emphasize, Peter was not morally or individually superior than the other Apostles, which I believe the Church Fathers were arguing for. Yet, as I have shown in this debate by evidence, it is clear through scripture and reason that Peter was ordained by Christ to be leader of the future Church. It is like this, we know President Bush is our president and we must respect that to keep order in our nation. But we also know that he is not "morally" better than me or anyone else. My opponent's supposed "confessions" from the Catholic theologians are not in fact "confessions," but interpreting Peter's authoritative superiority, and not moral superiority, over the other Apostles. And finally let me address my opponents objection that their is no evidence that Peter practiced superiority over others: The reason why Peter never practiced his superiority over any of the Apostles or other Christian elders was because, by inference in his Epistles and Acts, he was already out preaching the Word (and as I had proved in earlier round) mainly in Rome. The first couple of Chapters of Acts give the best evidece to this point. Let's go to Acts 1:15-16 "And in those days PETER stood up in the midst of the disciples [after the ascension of Christ back into heaven] (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Men and Brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus..."" As we can see Peter, immediately upon Christ's departure, is taking authority. And the best way to establish this authority is by interpretation of Scripture, which he does in relation of David's prophecy to Judas. Then, if we go to Acts 2:14-39, we see Peter and no other Apostle, give a Sermon. Soon after, as shown by Acts, Peter goes off spreading the word of Christ in Italy. It is assumed that shortly threafter, he is crucified or killed as a Martyr. And thus that is why no evidence shows his excercise of power. Peter was granted supreme authority which the Roman Church acknowledged. Good luck to my opponent!